UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Western Division - Los Angeles)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:20-cv-06963-AB-AGR

Sara Ochoa et al v. City of Los Angeles et al Assigned to: Judge Andre Birotte Jr Referred to: Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Date Filed: 08/02/2020 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff
Sara Ochoa individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons

represented by Humberto M Guizar Guizar Henderson and Carrazco LLP Justice X Building 3500 West Beverly Boulevard Montebello, CA 90640 323-725-1151 Fax: 323-597-0101 Email: hguizar@ghclegal.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Austin Richard Dove Dove Law Corp Justice X Building 3500 West Beverly Boulevard Montebello, CA 90640 213-487-8300 Email: dovelawcorp@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen A King Kings Justice LLP Justice X Building 3500 West Beverly Boulevard Montebello, CA 90640 323-546-4529 Email: sking@kingsjusticelaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christian M Contreras Law Offices of Humberto Guizar APC 3500 West Beverly Boulevard Montebello, CA 90640

Plaintiff Branden Costa individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons
Plaintiff Jajuan Johnson individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons
Plaintiff Antonio May individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

323-725-1151 Fax: 323-597-0101 Email: ccontreras@ghclegal.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Humberto M Guizar (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Austin Richard Dove (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christian M Contreras (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen A King (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Humberto M Guizar (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Austin Richard Dove (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christian M Contreras (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen A King (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Humberto M Guizar (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Michael Perr individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons
Plaintiff Gadseel Quinonez individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons

Austin Richard Dove (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christian M Contreras (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen A King (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Humberto M Guizar (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Austin Richard Dove (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christian M Contreras (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen A King (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Humberto M Guizar (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Austin Richard Dove (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen A King (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christian M Contreras

Plaintiff Jose Quinonez individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons
Plaintiff Kivon Williams individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons
V. Defendant City of Los Angeles a legal subdivision of the State of California

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Humberto M Guizar (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Austin Richard Dove (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen A King (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christian M Contreras (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Humberto M Guizar (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Austin Richard Dove (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen A King (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christian M Contreras (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Chief Michael Moore TERMINATED: 08/21/2020 Defendant Does 1 through 10, inclusive Defendant Braxston Shaw
Defendant Michael Coblentz
Defendant Nicolas Martinez

represented by Christian M Contreras (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Christian M Contreras (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Christian M Contreras (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY

Date Filed 08/02/2020 08/02/2020 08/02/2020
08/02/2020

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-27459177 - Fee: $400, filed by Plaintiff Sara Ochoa. (Attorney Christian M Contreras added to party Sara Ochoa(pty:pla))(Contreras, Christian) (Entered: 08/02/2020)
2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiffs Branden Costa, Jajuan Johnson, Antonio May, Sara Ochoa, Michael Perr. (Contreras, Christian) (Entered: 08/02/2020)
3 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiffs All Plaintiffs, (Attorney Christian M Contreras added to party Branden Costa(pty:pla), Attorney Christian M Contreras added to party Jajuan Johnson(pty:pla), Attorney Christian M Contreras added to party Antonio May(pty:pla), Attorney Christian M Contreras added to party Michael Perr(pty:pla))(Contreras, Christian) (Entered: 08/02/2020)
4 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Civil Cover Sheet (CV-71) 2 , Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) 1 , Certificate/Notice of Interested Parties, 3 filed by Plaintiffs Branden Costa, Jajuan Johnson,

08/04/2020
08/04/2020 08/04/2020 08/04/2020 08/05/2020 08/21/2020
08/21/2020
08/21/2020

Antonio May, Sara Ochoa, Michael Perr. (Contreras, Christian) (Entered: 08/02/2020)
5 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Humberto M Guizar counsel for Plaintiffs Sara Ochoa, Michael Perr. Adding Humberto Guizar as counsel of record for Plaintiffs, SARA OCHOA, BRANDEN COSTA, JAJUAN JOHNSON, ANTONIO MAY, and MICHAEL PERR for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs SARA OCHOA, BRANDEN COSTA, JAJUAN JOHNSON, ANTONIO MAY, and MICHAEL PERR. (Attorney Humberto M Guizar added to party Sara Ochoa(pty:pla), Attorney Humberto M Guizar added to party Michael Perr(pty:pla))(Guizar, Humberto) (Entered: 08/04/2020)
6 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Andre Birotte Jr and Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. (ghap) (Entered: 08/04/2020)
7 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (ghap) (Entered: 08/04/2020)
8 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) 1 as to Defendants City of Los Angeles, Michael Moore. (ghap) (Entered: 08/04/2020)
9 STANDING ORDER upon filing of the complaint by Judge Andre Birotte Jr. (cb) (Entered: 08/05/2020)
10 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Business or Contact Information: for attorney Christian M Contreras counsel for Plaintiffs Branden Costa, Jajuan Johnson, Antonio May, Sara Ochoa, Michael Perr. Changing Firm Name to Law Offices of Humberto Guizar, APC. Filed by Plaintiffs Branden Costa, Jajuan Johnson, Antonio May, Sara Ochoa, Michael Perr. (Contreras, Christian) (Entered: 08/21/2020)
11 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Business or Contact Information: for attorney Humberto M Guizar counsel for Plaintiffs Branden Costa, Jajuan Johnson, Antonio May, Sara Ochoa, Michael Perr. Changing Firm Name to Law Offices of Humberto Guizar, APC. Filed by Plaintiffs Branden Costa, Jajuan Johnson, Antonio May, Sara Ochoa, Michael Perr. (Guizar, Humberto) (Entered: 08/21/2020)
12 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against DEFENDANTS Gadseel Quinonez, Braxston Shaw, Michael Coblentz, Jose Quinonez, Nicolas Martinez, Kivon Williams amending Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) 1 , filed by Plaintiffs Jajuan Johnson, Branden Costa, Antonio May, Sara Ochoa, Michael Perr, Gadseel Quinonez, Braxston Shaw, Michael Coblentz, Jose Quinonez, Nicolas Martinez, Kivon Williams(Attorney Christian M Contreras added to party Gadseel Quinonez(pty:pla), Attorney Christian M Contreras added to party Jose Quinonez(pty:pla), Attorney Christian M Contreras added to party Kivon

08/24/2020 08/25/2020
08/25/2020 08/27/2020

Williams(pty:pla), Attorney Christian M Contreras added to party Braxston Shaw(pty:dft), Attorney Christian M Contreras added to party Michael Coblentz(pty:dft), Attorney Christian M Contreras added to party Nicolas Martinez(pty:dft))(Contreras, Christian) (Entered: 08/21/2020)
13 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Amended Complaint/Petition,,, 12 filed by Plaintiffs Branden Costa, Jajuan Johnson, Antonio May, Sara Ochoa, Michael Perr, Gadseel Quinonez, Jose Quinonez, Kivon Williams. (Contreras, Christian) (Entered: 08/24/2020)
14 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Request to Issue Summons RE: First Amended Complaint 12 . The following error(s) was found: The name and address of the attorney for plaintiff(s)must be entered in the appropriate field. Please indicate, "ON THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT," below the words, "SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION." The summons cannot be issued until this defect has been corrected. Please correct the defect and re-file your request. (gk) (Entered: 08/25/2020)
15 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Amended Complaint/Petition,,, 12 filed by Plaintiffs Branden Costa, Jajuan Johnson, Antonio May, Sara Ochoa, Michael Perr, Gadseel Quinonez, Jose Quinonez, Kivon Williams. (Contreras, Christian) (Entered: 08/25/2020)
16 21-Day Summons Issued re First Amended Complaint 12 as to Defendants City of Los Angeles, Braxston Shaw, Michael Coblentz, Nicolas Martinez, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive. (gk) (Entered: 08/27/2020)

PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt

09/13/2020 08:41:04

PACER Login:

CRClearinghouse

Client Code:

Kanarek

Description: Docket Report

Search Criteria:

2:20-cv-06963-ABAGR End date: 9/14/2020

Billable Pages:

7

Cost:

0.70

 
 Case 2:20-cv-06963-AB-AGR Document 12 Filed 08/21/20 Page 1 of 22 Page ID #:52

1 Humberto M. Guizar, Esq. (SBN 125769) Austin R. Dove, Esq. (SBN 180321)

hguizar@ghclegal.com

DOVE LAW CORP.

2 Christian Contreras, Esq. (SBN 330269) dovelawcorp@gmail.com

3

cconterras@ghclegal.com LAW OFFICES OF HUMBERTO

Justice X Building 3500 W. Beverly Blvd.

4 GUIZAR, APC

Montebello, CA 90640

Justice X Building

Telephone: (213) 487-8300

5 3500 W. Beverly Blvd.

6

Montebello, CA 90640 Telephone: (323) 725-1151

7 Stephen A. King, Esq. (SBN 224683)

8 KINGS JUSTICE, LLC

sking@kingsjusticelaw.com 9 Justice X Building

10

3500 W. Beverly Blvd. Montebello, CA 90640

11 Telephone: (323) 546-4529

12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

13

SARA OCHOA, BRANDEN COSTA, JAJUAN JOHNSON, ANTONIO MAY, MICHAEL PERR, KIVON WILLIAMS, GADSEEL QUINONEZ, and JOSE

14 QUINONEZ, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons,

15 UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT
16

17

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18 SARA OCHOA, BRANDEN COSTA, ) CASE NO: 2:20-cv-06963-AB (AGR)

JAJUAN JOHNSON, ANTONIO MAY, )

19 20 21 22

and MICHAEL PERR, KIVON WILLIAMS, GADSEEL QUINONEZ, and JOSE QUINONEZ individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiffs,

)

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR

) DAMAGES

)

) 1. Fourth Amendment Violations

) (42 U.S.C. § 1983);

) 2. Fourteenth Amendment -

23

v.

) Substantive Due Process

24 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a legal

subdivision of the State of California; 25 BRAXSTON SHAW; MICHAEL

26

COBLENTZ; NICOLAS MARTINEZ; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

27 Defendants.

) (42 U.S.C. § 1983); ) 3. First Amendment Violations ) (42 U.S.C. § 1983); ) 4. Municipal Liability (Monell) ) (42 U.S.C. § 1983) )

28

) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1 PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:20-cv-06963-AB-AGR Document 12 Filed 08/21/20 Page 2 of 22 Page ID #:53

1

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

2

1. Public trust is the bedrock of community policing. The allegations in

3 this Complaint shake the very core of that foundation. This action stems from the

4 misclassification of hundreds, if not thousands of City of Los Angeles residents as

5 gang members by at least twenty-seven (27) Los Angeles Police Department

6 (hereinafter “LAPD”) officers, including Braxton Shaw, Michael Coblentz, and

7 Nicolas Martinez, who have been charged with fifty-nine (59) criminal counts.

8

2. Los Angeles Police Department officers routinely falsified field

9 interview (hereinafter “FI”) cards by classifying people who are not gang members,

10 as gang members or gang associates. LAPD and its officers further violated public

11 trust and numerous laws by entering false descriptions of innocent civilians as gang

12 members into an official state-wide database. In many instances LAPD officers

13 falsely stated in official records that the individuals had “self-admitted” gang

14 affiliation when no such admissions had occurred. This resulted in devastating

15 consequences to putative class members, almost all of whom were Black and Latino,

16 including imprisonment, deprivation of civil rights, and practical consequences such

17 as not being able to obtain a job, rent an apartment, or receive financial aid for

18 college.

19

3. As an example, class members, Gadseel Quinonez and Jose Quinonez

20 are two brothers who live in South Los Angeles, California. Gadseel Quinonez and

21 Jose Quinonez are young Latino men who work in a recycling center in South Los

22 Angeles, an area which is patrolled by the Metropolitan Division of the Los Angeles

23 Police Department. In or around 2018, Braxston Shaw who was partnered with

24 Nicholas Martinez, wrote an FI card falsely documenting Gadseel Quinonez and Jose

25 Quinonez as MS 13 gang members with the gang monikers “Squealer” and “Sneaks,”

26 respectively. On July 9, 2020, a fifty-nine (59) count criminal complaint was filed by

27 the Los Angeles County District Attorney against Braxton Shaw, Michael Coblentz

28 and Nicolas Martinez for various crimes, including felonies, for the falsification of

2 PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:20-cv-06963-AB-AGR Document 12 Filed 08/21/20 Page 3 of 22 Page ID #:54

1 FI cards and fabrication of non-existent people as gang members. Among the victims

2 in the criminal complaint are Gadseel Quinonez, Jose Quinonez and Kivon Williams.

3

4. As another example, class member, Sara Ochoa is a young Latina

4 woman who grew up in East Los Angeles and made it out of the low income

5 neighborhood to become a correctional officers of the State of California. Ms. Ochoa

6 served as a public servant for the State of California up until she became a victim of

7 LAPD Officers on January 18, 2020 when Ms. Ochoa was misclassified as a “gang

8 associate” simply for going back to visit the neighborhood she grew up in.

9 Unfortunately, not only was Ms. Ochoa misclassified as a “gang associate,” Ms.

10 Ochoa was subjected to an unreasonable detention by being handcuffed on the street

11 in public display for approximately twenty (20) minutes while her vehicle and

12 belongings in her vehicle were ransacked by LAPD officers.

13

5. Another putative class member is Jajuan Johnson. Mr. Johnson recently

14 graduated from high school in south Los Angeles. Notably, he scored sixty-two (62)

15 points in a varsity basketball game during his 2018 senior year. He is soft-spoken and

16 has no criminal record. On January 13, 2019, Johnson was a passenger in a car being

17 driven in Los Angeles when LAPD officers pulled over the vehicle, ostensibly for

18 tinted windows. Officers came up with a reason to search the car. LAPD officers then

19 blatantly lied in the police report they authored by contending that Mr. Johnson, a

20 college student, Jamba Juice employee and aspiring writer was a member of a Blood

21 street gang. The LAPD officers reasoned that because Mr. Johnson’s cousin was an

22 alleged gang member, he too must be gang affiliated. As a result, Mr. Johnson is

23 currently being prosecuted by the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office pursuant to a

24 fabricated gang allegation under Penal Code Section 186.22. Mr. Johnson

25 consistently denied any gang membership to no avail. Because of the LAPD’s false

26 claims against him, Mr. Johnson has suffered the loss of employment, damage to his

27 reputation and severe depression. If convicted, Mr. Johnson will be required to

28 register as a gang member.

3 PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:20-cv-06963-AB-AGR Document 12 Filed 08/21/20 Page 4 of 22 Page ID #:55

1

6. Moreover, Branden Costa, a young Black man, had just graduated from

2 a Palisades area high school and was a Division 1 prospect athlete. One afternoon he

3 was returning home from visiting a friend at the California Hospital in Downtown

4 Los Angeles. That day a shooting occurred at a park a short distance from Mr. Costa’s

5 home. Time-verified security footage from the hospital showed Mr. Costa exiting the

6 lobby ten minutes before the shooting. The shooting location, however, was a twenty-

7 minute commute from the hospital. Nonetheless, LAPD officers falsely accused Mr.

8 Costa of being the shooter. In an effort to unlawfully convict Mr. Costa, LAPD

9 officers prepared and submitted false police reports claiming Mr. Costa was a gang

10 member, even though LAPD officers had no credible evidence to support this claim.

11 Mr. Costa expressly told LAPD officers he was not a gang member. Although Mr.

12 Costa was acquitted of all charges, the falsely contrived gang identification followed

13 him and has plagued his life every day since, causing him incalculable suffering and

14 damage.

15

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

16

7. This action is properly filed in the Central District of the United States

17 District Court for the redress of alleged deprivations of constitutional rights as

18 protected by 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, 1988, the Fourth and Fourteenth

19 Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the California Constitution.

20 Jurisdiction is founded on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and 1367.

21

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

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

23 in the Central District of California.

24

PARTIES

25

9. At all relevant times, SARA OCHOA is and was an individual residing

26 in the County of Los Angeles, California.

27

10. At all relevant times, BRANDEN COSTA is and was an individual

28 residing in the County of Los Angeles, California.

4 PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:20-cv-06963-AB-AGR Document 12 Filed 08/21/20 Page 5 of 22 Page ID #:56

1

11. At all relevant times, JAJUAN JOHNSON is and was an individual

2 residing in the County of Los Angeles, California.

3

12. At all relevant times, ANTONIO MAY is and was an individual residing

4 in the County of Los Angeles, California.

5

13. At all relevant times, MICHAEL PERRY is and was an individual

6 residing in the County of Los Angeles, California.

7

14. At all relevant times, GADSEEL QUINONEZ is and was an individual

8 residing in the County of Los Angeles, California.

9

15. At all relevant times, JOSE QUINONEZ is and was an individual

10 residing in the County of Los Angeles, California.

11

16. At all relevant times, KIVON WILLIAMS is and was an individual

12 residing in the County of Los Angeles, California.

13

17. The Plaintiff classes consist of: 1) approximately one thousand (1,000)

14 individuals, if not more, who were subjected to misclassification as gang members in

15 Los Angeles City reports; 2) approximately five hundred (500) individuals, if not

16 more, who were made part of a gang database; and 3) approximately five thousand

17 (5,000) individuals who were misclassified as gang associated.

18

18. Defendant City of Los Angeles is a municipal corporation duly

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

20 Los Angeles Police Department is a local government entity and an agency of

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

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

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

24 federal rights claims.

25

19. Defendant BRAXSTON SHAW was, and at all times relevant to this

26 action, a Los Angeles Police Department officer. He is sued in both his individual

27 and official capacities.

28 ///

5 PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:20-cv-06963-AB-AGR Document 12 Filed 08/21/20 Page 6 of 22 Page ID #:57

1

20. Defendant MICHAEL COBLENTZ was, and at all times relevant to this

2 action, a Los Angeles Police Department officer. He is sued in both his individual

3 and official capacities.

4

21. Defendant NICOLAS MARTINEZ was, and at all times relevant to this

5 action, a Los Angeles Police Department officer. He is sued in both his individual

6 and official capacities.

7

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

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

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

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

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

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

13 sued in both their individual and official capacities.

14

23. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege at all times

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

16 some manner for the damages and injuries alleged herein.

17

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

18 relevant, Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, servants and employees of

19 the other Defendants and were acting at all times within the scope of their agency

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

21 employer. At all times Defendants were acting under color of state law.

22

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

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

24 unlawful action taken against Plaintiffs.

25

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

26

26. The City of Los Angeles Police Department has manipulated the law to

27 criminalize innocent people. Specifically, California Penal Code Section 186.22 is a

28 statute that gives police officers broad discretion to arrest individuals on the premise

6 PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:20-cv-06963-AB-AGR Document 12 Filed 08/21/20 Page 7 of 22 Page ID #:58

1 that the person committed a crime for the benefit, at the direction and in association

2 with a criminal street gang. LAPD officers, since the inception of the statute, created

3 a unwritten custom and practice of using CPC 186.22 to criminalize innocent people

4 and classify them as gang members.

5

27. In many cases, LAPD officers falsely incriminated members of this

6 class by applying gang enhancements to simple offenses like marijuana possession

7 or receiving stolen property. This practice exposed these criminal defendants to

8 extremely harsh sentences. With exposure to aeonic terms of imprisonment, many

9 individuals accepted plea deals to lesser offenses to avoid being locked up for

10 decades. Others, who had the audacity to insist on their innocence, were found guilty

11 by juries based on perjurious LAPD officers’ testimony, then sentenced to many

12 years including, in numerous instances, life in prison. Those same individuals have

13 been forced to register annually as gang members at the very police stations where

14 they were framed in the first place.

15

28. In June of 2020, the California Department of Justice department

16 announced it suspended the use of CalGangs, citing questions about its accuracy and

17 the desire to "avoid any adverse impact on individuals, particularly in communities

18 of color." CalGangs is used by law enforcement agencies across the state of

19 California to store names and personal details of nearly eighty thousand (80,000)

20 people suspected of being active gang members or possibly associating with them

21 but has long been controversial.

22

29. LAPD records account for about 25% of all CalGangs entries.

23

30. On July 14, 2020, the California Department of Justice revoked LAPD’s

24 access to the California statewide CalGangs database. In 2016, a state audit found

25 that CalGangs was riddled with questionable entries and errors such as the inclusion

26 of year-old children. CalGangs represents racial profiling with little proof to back up

27 the allegations of gang membership. The majority of those in the database are Black

28 and Latino men.

7 PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:20-cv-06963-AB-AGR Document 12 Filed 08/21/20 Page 8 of 22 Page ID #:59

1

31. On July 9, 2020, the L.A. County District Attorney's Office filed a fifty

2 nine (59) count, including felonies, criminal complaint against three (3) LAPD

3 officers -- Braxton Shaw, Michael Coblentz, and Nicolas Martinez. The criminal

4 complaint accuses Braxton Shaw, Michael Coblentz, and Nicolas Martinez of

5 conspiring to file false police reports, fabrication of false court documents,

6 falsification of FI cards, and the fabrication of non-existent people as gang members.

7 Among the victims in the criminal complaint are Gadseel Quinonez, Jose Quinonez

8 and Kivon Williams.

9

32. On July 10, 2020, an LAPD memorandum confirmed that a total of

10 twenty-four (24) LAPD officers are under investigation for falsifying police reports

11 and misclassifying civilians as gang members or gang associates.

12

33. Some putative class members are Gadseel Quinonez and Jose Quinonez.

13 Gadseel Quinonez and Jose Quinonez are two brothers who live in South Los

14 Angeles, California. Gadseel Quinonez and Jose Quinonez are young Latino men

15 who work in a recycling center in South Los Angeles, an area which is patrolled by

16 the Metropolitan Division of the Los Angeles Police Department. In or around 2018,

17 Braxston Shaw who was partnered with Nicholas Martinez, wrote an FI card falsely

18 documenting Gadseel Quinonez and Jose Quinonez as MS 13 gang members with

19 the gang monikers “Squealer” and “Sneaks,” respectively.

20

34. Another putative class member is Kivon Williams. Kivon Williams is a

21 young Black man who lives in South Los Angeles. In or around 2018, Braxston Shaw

22 who was partnered with Michael Coblentz, wrote an FI card falsely documenting

23 Kivon Williams as a “77 Swan" gang member with "Swan's" and "77" tattoos on his

24 neck, and a moniker, "Dub Bird."

25

35. One putative class member is Jajuan Johnson. Mr. Johnson recently

26 graduated from high school in south Los Angeles. Notably, he scored sixty (62)

27 points in a varsity basketball game during his 2018 senior year. He is soft-spoken and

28 has no criminal record.

8 PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:20-cv-06963-AB-AGR Document 12 Filed 08/21/20 Page 9 of 22 Page ID #:60

1

36. On January 13, 2019, Johnson was a passenger in a car being driven in

2 Los Angeles when LAPD officers pulled over the vehicle, ostensibly for tinted

3 windows. Officers came up with a reason to search the car. LAPD officers then

4 blatantly lied in the police report they authored by contending that Mr. Johnson, a

5 college student, Jamba Juice employee and aspiring writer was a member of a Blood

6 street gang. The LAPD officers reasoned that because Mr. Johnson’s cousin was an

7 alleged gang member, he too must be gang affiliated.

8

37. As a result, Mr. Johnson is currently being prosecuted by the Los

9 Angeles City Attorney’s Office pursuant to a fabricated gang allegation under Penal

10 Code Section 186.22. Mr. Johnson consistently denied any gang membership to no

11 avail. Because of the LAPD’s false claims against him, Mr. Johnson has suffered the

12 loss of employment, damage to his reputation and severe depression. If convicted,

13 Mr. Johnson will be required to register as a gang member.

14

38. Branden Costa is another putative class member. Branden Costa is a

15 young Black man, had just graduated from a Palisades area high school and was a

16 Division 1 prospect athlete.

17

39. One afternoon he was returning home from visiting a friend at the

18 California Hospital in Downtown Los Angeles. That day a shooting occurred at a

19 park a short distance from Mr. Costa’s home. Time-verified security footage from

20 the hospital showed Mr. Costa exiting the lobby ten minutes before the shooting. The

21 shooting location, however, was a twenty-minute commute from the hospital.

22 Nonetheless, LAPD officers falsely accused Mr. Costa of being the shooter. In an

23 effort to unlawfully convict Mr. Costa, LAPD officers prepared and submitted false

24 police reports claiming Mr. Costa was a gang member, even though LAPD officers

25 had no credible evidence to support this claim. Mr. Costa expressly told LAPD

26 officers he was not a gang member. Although Mr. Costa was acquitted of all charges,

27 the falsely contrived gang identification followed him and has plagued his life every

28 day since, causing him incalculable suffering and damage.

9 PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:20-cv-06963-AB-AGR Document 12 Filed 08/21/20 Page 10 of 22 Page ID #:61

1

40. The named Plaintiffs are suing on behalf of a class of similarly situated

2 persons throughout Los Angeles who have been victims of scofflaw Los Angeles

3 Police Department officers who filed fraudulent reports, lied under oath, and abused

4 gang database systems.

5

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

6

41. The named Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of a

7 proposed class of all other persons similarly situated pursuant to Federal Rules of

8 Civil Procedure Rule 23(b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3). The damages classes are defined as:

9

A. Approximately one thousand (1,000) individuals, if not more, who were

10 subjected to misclassification as gang members in Los Angeles City reports;

11

B. Approximately five hundred (500) individuals, if not more, who were

12 made part of a gang database; and

13

C. Approximately five thousand (5,000) individuals, if not more, who were

14 misclassified as gang associates.

15

42. Each class is inclusive of people who were misclassified either as gang

16 members of gang associated by LAPD officials. The first class of a presently

17 unknown number but is estimated as in excess of one thousand (1,000) individuals,

18 the second class consists of a presently unknown number but is estimated as in excess

19 of five hundred (500) individuals, and the third class consists of a presently unknown

20 number but is estimated as in excess of five thousand (5,000) individuals.

21

43. Because the issues in the three (3) classes are substantially the same and

22 arise from the same events, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures Rule 23 criteria for

23 the classes are discussed jointly without differentiating between the different classes.

24

44. Questions of law or fact common to putative class members

25 predominate over any questions affecting only individual members and a class action

26 is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating this

27 lawsuit.

28 ///

10 PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:20-cv-06963-AB-AGR Document 12 Filed 08/21/20 Page 11 of 22 Page ID #:62

1

45. The claims of the putative class satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule

2 of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and, alternatively, Rule 23(b)(2).

3

46. Defendants detained and/or arrested the putative class and sub-classes

4 as a group and treated all similarly, acting on ground applicable to the putative class.

5 The named Plaintiffs claim that the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights

6 were violated raise common question of law and fact. The named Plaintiffs claim

7 also claim their constitutional rights were also violated as a result of a long standing

8 or widespread custom and/or practice which was the moving force behind the

9 constitutional violations and therefore, the City of Los Angeles it liable under

10 municipal liability.

11

47. Questions of law and fact are common to the class and sub-classes,

12 including whether the putative class and sub-classes were misclassified as gang

13 members or gang associates.

14

48. The legal theories and factual predicates upon which the damages

15 classes and sub-classes seek relief predominate over any questions affecting only

16 individual members. The legal harms suffered by the named Plaintiffs and the class

17 Plaintiffs are identical.

18

49. The named Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of those of the putative class

19 and sub-class each represents, as each was engaged in or associated with peaceable

20 and lawful free speech and assembly activity when each was subjected to excessive

21 force and/or arrested.

22

50. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the common

23 class interest. The named Plaintiffs have a strong interest in achieving the relief

24 requested in this Complaint, they have no conflicts with members of the Plaintiff

25 class, and they will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

26

51. Counsel for the named Plaintiffs know of no conflicts among or between

27 members of the class, the named Plaintiffs, or the attorneys in this action.

28 ///

11 PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:20-cv-06963-AB-AGR Document 12 Filed 08/21/20 Page 12 of 22 Page ID #:63

1

52. The Defendants have acted and refused to act on grounds generally

2 applicable to the putative class.

3

53. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the class

4 would create a risk of inconsistent standards of conduct for the Defendants, thereby

5 making a class action a superior method of adjudicating this lawsuit.

6

54. Plaintiffs do not know the identities of all class members. Plaintiffs are

7 informed and believe and thereon allege the identities of class members in the

8 arrestee class may be obtained from the personal information compelled by

9 Defendants through arrest records.

10

55. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the LAPD

11 officers acted in accordance with orders given by supervisors from the highest

12 command positions, in accordance with policies and procedures instituted by the

13 LAPD and the City of Los Angeles.

14

56. As a direct and proximate cause of the conduct described herein, the

15 named individual Plaintiffs have been denied their constitutional statutory, and legal

16 rights as stated herein, and have suffered general and special damages, including but

17 not limited to, mental and emotional distress, physical injuries and bodily harm, pain,

18 fear, humiliation, embarrassment, discomfort, and anxiety and other damages in an

19 amount according to proof.

20

57. Defendants’ acts were willful, wanton, malicious, and oppressive, and

21 done with conscious or reckless disregard for, and deliberate indifference to,

22 Plaintiffs’ rights.

23

58. Defendants’ polices practices, customs, conduct and acts alleged herein

24 resulted in, and will continue to result in, irreparable injury the Plaintiffs, including

25 but not limited to violation of their constitutional and statutory rights. Plaintiffs have

26 no plain, adequate, or complete remedy at law to address the wrong described herein.

27 The Plaintiffs and class members intend in the future to exercise their constitutional

28 rights of freedom of speech and association by engaging in expressive activities in

12 PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:20-cv-06963-AB-AGR Document 12 Filed 08/21/20 Page 13 of 22 Page ID #:64

1 the City of Los Angeles. Defendants’ conduct described herein has created

2 uncertainty among Plaintiffs with respect to their exercise now and in the future of

3 these constitutional rights.

4

59. An actual controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants in that

5 Plaintiffs contend that the policies, practices, and conduct of Defendants alleged

6 herein are unlawful and unconstitutional, whereas Plaintiffs are informed and believe

7 that Defendants contend that said policies, practices, and conduct are lawful and

8 constitutional. Plaintiffs seek a declaration of rights with respect to this controversy.

9

60. In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(a) the

10 members of the class are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.

11 Plaintiffs do not know the exact number of class members. Plaintiffs are informed

12 and believe and thereon allege that there are more than six thousand five hundred

13 (6,500) individuals who were classified as gang members or gang associates by the

14 Los Angeles Police Department. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon

15 allege that the number of persons in the proposed class is in the thousands.

16

61. In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(a), there

17 are questions of fact common to the class. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and

18 thereon allege that the common questions of fact include, but are not limited to the

19 following: (1) individuals who were subjected to misclassification as gang members

20 in Los Angeles City reports; (2) individuals who were made part of a gang database;

21 and (3) individuals who were misclassified as gang associates.

22

62. In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(a), there

23 are questions of law common to the class. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and

24 thereon allege that the common questions of law include but are not limited to the

25 following: (1) Whether the City of Los Angeles violated the Fourth Amendment

26 rights of people misclassified as gang members or gang associates; (2) Whether the

27 City of Los Angeles violated the Fourteenth Amendment rights of people

28 misclassified as gang members or gang associates; (4) Whether the City of Los

13 PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:20-cv-06963-AB-AGR Document 12 Filed 08/21/20 Page 14 of 22 Page ID #:65

1 Angeles violated the First Amendment rights of people misclassified as gang

2 members or gang associates.

3

63. In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(a) the

4 claims of the representative plaintiffs are typical of the class. Plaintiffs were victims

5 of at least twenty-seven (27) Los Angeles Police Department officers, including

6 Braxton Shaw, Michael Coblentz, and Nicolas Martinez who have already been

7 charged with fifty-nine (59) criminal counts. Los Angeles Police Department officers

8 lied on field interview cards by classifying people who are not gang members, as

9 gang members, and/or classifying people who are not associated with a gang as “gang

10 associates.”

11

64. Thus, Plaintiffs have the same interests and have suffered the same type

12 of damages as the class members. Plaintiffs' claims are based upon the same or

13 similar legal theories as the claims of the class members. Each class member suffered

14 actual damages from being subjected to misclassification as gang members or gang

15 associates.

16

65. In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23 (a), the

17 representative plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

18 The interests of the representative plaintiffs are consistent with and not antagonistic

19 to the interests of the class.

20

66. In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(b)(1)(A),

21 prosecutions of separate actions by individual members of the class would create a

22 risk that inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of

23 the class would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the parties opposing

24 the class.

25

67. In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(b)(1)(B),

26 prosecutions of separate actions by individual members of the class would create a

27 risk of adjudications with respect to individual members of the class which would, as

28 a practical matter, substantially impair or impede the interests of the other members

14 PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:20-cv-06963-AB-AGR Document 12 Filed 08/21/20 Page 15 of 22 Page ID #:66

1 of the class to protect their interests.

2

68. In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(b)(2),

3 plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege the defendants have acted on

4 grounds generally applicable to the class.

5

69. In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(b)(3), the

6 questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any

7 questions affecting only individual members, and this class action is superior to other

8 available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy between

9 the parties. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege that the interest of

10 class members in individually controlling the prosecution of a separate action is low

11 in that most class members would be unable to individually prosecute any action at

12 all. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege that the amounts at stake

13 for individuals are such that separate suits would be impracticable in that most

14 members of the class will not be able to find counsel to represent them. Plaintiffs are

15 informed and believe and allege that it is desirable to concentrate all litigation in one

16 forum because all of the claims arise in the same location, i.e., the City of Los

17 Angeles. It will promote judicial efficiency to resolve the common questions of law

18 and fact in one forum, rather than in multiple courts.

19

70. Plaintiffs do not know the identities of all class members. Plaintiffs are

20 informed and believe, and thereon allege the identities of the class members are

21 ascertainable from the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, the Los

22 Angeles City Attorney's Office and/or LAPD records, in particular the computer

23 records used to track who are or were alleged gang members and alleged gang

24 associates.

25

71. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege that Los Angeles

26 County District Attorney’s Office, the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office and/or

27 LAPD records reflect the identities, including addresses and telephone numbers, of

28 the persons who are or were alleged gang members and alleged gang associates.

15 PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:20-cv-06963-AB-AGR Document 12 Filed 08/21/20 Page 16 of 22 Page ID #:67

1

72. Plaintiffs know of no difficulty that will be encountered in the

2 management of this litigation that would preclude its maintenance as a class action.

3 The class action is superior to any other available means to resolve the issues raised

4 on behalf of the class. The class action will be manageable because reliable records

5 systems exist from which to ascertain the members of the class. Liability can be

6 determined on a class-wide basis. Damages can be determined on a class-wide basis

7 using a damages matrix set by a jury, or by trying the damages of a statistically valid

8 sample of the class to a jury and extrapolating those damages to the class as a whole.

9 Moreover, plaintiffs are represented by counsel with class action litigation

10 experience, particularly against the City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Police

11 Department.

12

73. In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(b)(3),

13 class members must be furnished with the best notice practicable under the

14 circumstances, including individual notice to all members who can be identified

15 through reasonable effort. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that LA City Attorney's

16 Office and/or LAPD computer records, and certainly police reports and F.1. cards

17 etc., contain a last known address for class members. Plaintiffs contemplate that

18 individual notice be given to class members at such last known address by first class

19 mail. Plaintiffs contemplate that the notice inform class members of the following:

20

a. The pendency of the class action, and the issues common to the class;

21

b. The nature of the action;

22

c. Their right to 'opt out' of the action within a given time, in which event

23 they will not be bound by a decision rendered in the class action;

24

d. Their right, if they do not 'opt out,' to be represented by their own counsel

25 and enter an appearance in the case; otherwise, they will be represented by the named

26 plaintiffs and their counsel; and

27

e. Their right, if they do not 'opt out,' to share in any recovery in favor of the

28 class, and conversely to be bound by any judgment on the common issues adverse to the

16 PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:20-cv-06963-AB-AGR Document 12 Filed 08/21/20 Page 17 of 22 Page ID #:68

1 class.

2

74. All of the following claims for relief are asserted against all Defendants:

3

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

4

FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS

5

(42 U.S.C. § 1983)

6

(ALL DEFENDANTS)

7

75. Plaintiffs repeats and re-alleges each allegation in all the preceding

8 paragraphs of this Complaint with same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.

9

76. In subjecting plaintiffs and class members to the unnecessary, unlawful,

10 demeaning, and outrageous seizures and/or searches when plaintiffs and class

11 members went outside, defendants, and each of them, violated plaintiffs' and class

12 members' rights to be secure in their persons against unreasonable searches and

13 seizures, as guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

14 States Constitution. Therefore, plaintiffs and class members are entitled to bring suit

15 and recover damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983.

16

77. As a direct and proximate cause of the aforementioned acts, plaintiffs

17 and class members were damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

18

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

19

FOR VIOLATION OF SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS

20

(42 U.S.C. § 1983)

21

(ALL DEFENDANTS)

22

78. Plaintiffs repeats and re-alleges each allegation in all the preceding

23 paragraphs of this Complaint with same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.

24

79. In subjecting plaintiffs and class members to the unnecessary, unlawful,

25 demeaning, and outrageous confinement and prohibition from going outside and/or

26 seizure, detention arrest, jailing and/or prosecution when plaintiffs and class

27 members went outside, defendants, and each of them, violated plaintiffs' and class

28 members' rights to travel and move freely about this state and/or the several states,

17 PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:20-cv-06963-AB-AGR Document 12 Filed 08/21/20 Page 18 of 22 Page ID #:69

1 as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Therefore, plaintiffs and class

2 members are entitled to bring suit and recover damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983.

3

80. As a direct and proximate cause of the aforementioned acts, plaintiffs

4 and class members were damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

5

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

6

FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS

7

(42 U.S.C. § 1983)

8

(ALL DEFENDANTS)

9

81. Plaintiffs repeats and re-alleges each allegation in all the preceding

10 paragraphs of this Complaint with same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.

11

82. In subjecting plaintiffs and class members to the unnecessary, unlawful,

12 demeaning, and outrageous confinement and prohibition from going outside and/or

13 seizure, detention arrest, jailing and/or prosecution when plaintiffs and class

14 members went outside, defendants, and each of them, violated plaintiffs' and class

15 members' rights to freely associate, communicate and assemble with persons, at

16 times, and in places of their choosing, as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth

17 Amendments to the United States Constitution. Therefore, plaintiffs and class

18 members are entitled to bring suit and recover damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983.

19

83. As a direct and proximate cause of the aforementioned acts, plaintiffs

20 and class members were damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

21

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

22

MUNICIPAL LIABILITY (MONELL)

23

(42 U.S.C. § 1983)

24

(By Plaintiffs against Defendant CITY OF LOS ANGELES)

25

84. Plaintiffs repeats and re-alleges each allegation in all the preceding

26 paragraphs of this Complaint with same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.

27

85. The City, through Chief Moore, and his predecessors, including former

28 Chief Charles Beck, and the LAPD, have failed to train their officers in the

18 PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:20-cv-06963-AB-AGR Document 12 Filed 08/21/20 Page 19 of 22 Page ID #:70

1 constitutional treatment of innocent civilians vis-a-vis misclassification of Los

2 Angeles City residents as gang members or gang associates as revealed by the above

3 allegations. The City has a custom and policy of misclassifying people as gang

4 members or gang associates, submitting fraudulent reports affirming the

5 misclassification, inputting fraudulent information into gang databases and

6 encouraging LAPD officers into further perpetuating the foregoing. The City is well

7 aware of its constitutional duties. The need for training and discipline to enforce

8 Constitutional guarantees in such circumstances is obvious and necessary.

9

86. On information and belief, Chief Moore and his predecessors delegated

10 responsibility and authority to persons within his command staff to act as the final

11 policy maker in determining whether to terminate, reprimand, or terminate LAPD

12 officers who were falsely classifying people and filing false reports which unlawfully

13 identified individuals. The persons who made these decisions, acted as the delegated

14 policy maker for the City of Los Angeles on these matters. There was no time,

15 opportunity, or procedure for anyone other than the policymakers to review or revise

16 the decisions prior to their final implementation.

17

87. Moreover, on and for some time prior to June 1, 2020 (and continuing

18 to the present date), Defendants CITY, and DOES 1-10, acting with gross negligence

19 and with reckless and deliberate indifference to the rights and liberties of the public

20 in general, and of Plaintiffs, and of persons in their class, situation and comparable

21 position in particular, knowingly maintained, enforced and applied an official

22 recognized custom, policy, and practice of:

23

A. Unreasonably detaining and unreasonably arresting Los Angeles City

24 civilians under the guise that said civilians were “gang members;”

25

B. Unreasonably detaining and unreasonably arresting Los Angeles City

26 and County residents under the guise that said civilians were “gang associates;”

27

C. Falsifying official CITY reports affirming the misclassification of a

28 civilian as gang members or gang associates;

19 PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:20-cv-06963-AB-AGR Document 12 Filed 08/21/20 Page 20 of 22 Page ID #:71

1

D. Falsifying information placed into statewide California gang databases

2 including CalGangs by the misclassification of a civilians as a gang members or gang

3 associates;

4

E. Committing perjury in open court by further affirming the

5 misclassification of civilians who were facing criminal charges;

6

F. Acquiescing, ratifying, and condoning the imposition of a criminal

7 sentencing enhancements of an individuals who were misclassified as a gang

8 members or gang associates.

9

G. Inadequately supervising, training, controlling, assigning, and

10 disciplining CITY employees and other personnel, in gang intelligence, the reporting

11 of gang intelligence, and the misclassification of civilians as gang members or gang

12 associates;

13

H. By maintaining grossly inadequate procedures for reporting,

14 supervising, investigating, reviewing, disciplining and controlling the intentional

15 misconduct by Defendants.

16

I. By having and maintaining the aforementioned unconstitutional policy,

17 custom, and practice with a deliberate indifference to individuals' safety and rights;

18

88. By reason of the policies and practices of Plaintiffs and the class

19 Plaintiffs represent were severely injured and were subjected to constitutional

20 violations while the CITY ratified and condoned said conduct. The aforementioned

21 policies and practices of Defendants, including the custom, policy and practice of

22 Defendant CITY in allowing its officers to misclassify civilians and file false reports

23 was a violation of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution.

24

89. Defendants CITY and DOES 1-10, together with various other officials,

25 whether named or unnamed, had either actual or constructive knowledge of the

26 deficient policies, practices and customs alleged in the paragraphs above. Despite

27 having knowledge as stated above, these defendants condoned, tolerated and through

28 actions and inactions thereby ratified such policies. Said defendants also acted with

20 PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:20-cv-06963-AB-AGR Document 12 Filed 08/21/20 Page 21 of 22 Page ID #:72

1 deliberate indifference to the foreseeable effects and consequences of these policies

2 with respect to the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs, and other individuals similarly

3 situated.

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. Plaintiffs further claim all of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs

7 incurred and to be incurred in Plaintiffs presenting, maintaining and prosecuting this

8 action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1988.

9

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

10

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests entry of judgment in their favor and against

11 Defendants as follows:

12

A. General and special damages according to proof;

13

B. As against the individual defendants only, punitive damages according to

14

C. For interest;

15

D. For reasonable costs of this suit and attorneys' fees, including pursuant to 42

16

U.S.C. § 1988;

17

E. For all other damages allowed under federal and state law and;

18

F. For such further other relief as the Court may deem just, proper, and

19

appropriate.

20 Respectfully Submitted,

21 Dated: August 21, 2020

THE JUSTICE X LAW GROUP

22

23

24

By: HUMBERTO GUIZAR

25

AUSTIN R. DOVE STEPHEN A. KING

26

CHRISTIAN CONTRERAS

Attorney for Plaintiffs

27

28

21 PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:20-cv-06963-AB-AGR Document 12 Filed 08/21/20 Page 22 of 22 Page ID #:73

1

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2

Plaintiffs hereby demands a trial by jury.

3 Dated: August 21, 2020

THE JUSTICE X LAW GROUP

4

5

6

By: HUMBERTO GUIZAR

7

AUSTIN R. DOVE STEPHEN A. KING

8

CHRISTIAN CONTRERAS

Attorney for Plaintiffs

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

22 PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

 
 Case 2:20-cv-06963 Document 1 Filed 08/02/20 Page 1 of 20 Page ID #:1

1 Humberto M. Guizar, Esq.,

(SBN: 125769) 2 Christian Contreras, Esq.,

3

(SBN: 330269) GUIZAR, HENDERSON &

4 CARRAZCO, LLP

Justice X Building

5 3500 W. Beverly Blvd.

6

Montebello, CA 90640 Telephone: (323) 725-1151

7 Facsimile: (323) 597-0101

Austin R. Dove, Esq., (SBN: 180321) DOVE LAW CORP. Justice X Building 3500 W. Beverly Blvd. Montebello, CA 90640 Telephone: (213) 487-8300

8 Stephen A. King Esq., (SBN: 224683)

KINGS JUSTICE, LLC 9 Justice X Building

10

3500 W. Beverly Blvd. Montebello, CA 90640

11 Telephone: (323) 546-4529

12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

13

SARA OCHOA, BRANDEN COSTA, JAJUAN JOHNSON, ANTONIO MAY, and MICHAEL PERR individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated

14 persons,

15

UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT

16 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
17

18 SARA OCHOA, BRANDEN COSTA, ) CASE NO.:

19 20

JAJUAN JOHNSON, ANTONIO MAY, )
and MICHAEL PERR, individually and ) on behalf of a class of similarly situated )

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

persons, 21

) 1. Fourth Amendment Violations

22

Plaintiffs,

) (42 U.S.C. § 1983); ) 2. Fourteenth Amendment -

23

v.

) Substantive Due Process ) (42 U.S.C. § 1983);

24 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a legal subdivision of the State of California;
25 CHIEF MICHEL MOORE; and DOES 26 1 through 10, inclusive,

) 3. First Amendment Violations ) (42 U.S.C. § 1983) ) 4. Municipal Liability (Monell) ) (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

27

Defendants.

28

) ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 2:20-cv-06963 Document 1 Filed 08/02/20 Page 2 of 20 Page ID #:2

1

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

2

1. Public trust is the bedrock of community policing. The allegations of

3 this Complaint speak to the very core of that foundation. This action stems from the

4 misclassification of hundreds, if not thousands of City of Los Angeles residents as

5 gang members by at least twenty-seven (27) Los Angeles Police Department

6 (hereinafter “LAPD”) officers, including Braxton Shaw, Michael Coblentz, and

7 Nicholas Martinez, who have been charged with fifty-nine (59) criminal counts.

8

2. Los Angeles Police Department officers routinely falsified field

9 interview (hereinafter “FI”) cards by classifying people who are not gang members,

10 as gang members or gang associates. LAPD and its officers further violated public

11 trust and numerous laws by entering false descriptions of innocent civilians as gang

12 members into an official state-wide database. In many instances LAPD officers

13 falsely stated in official records that the individuals had “self-admitted” gang

14 affiliation when no such admissions had occurred. This resulted in devastating

15 consequences to putative class members, almost all of whom were Black and Latino,

16 including imprisonment, deprivation of civil rights, and practical consequences such

17 as not being able to obtain a job, rent an apartment, or receive financial aid for

18 college.

19

3. As an example, class member, Sara Ochoa is a young Latina woman

20 who grew up in East Los Angeles and made it out of the low income neighborhood

21 to become a correctional officers of the State of California. Ms. Ochoa served as a

22 public servant for the State of California up until she became a victim of LAPD

23 Officers on January 18, 2020 when Ms. Ochoa was misclassified as a “gang

24 associate” simply for going back to visit the neighborhood she grew up in.

25 Unfortunately, not only was Ms. Ochoa misclassified as a “gang associate,” Ms.

26 Ochoa was subjected to an unreasonable detention by being handcuffed on the street

27 in public display for approximately twenty (20) minutes while her vehicle and

28 belongings in her vehicle were ransacked by LAPD officers.

2 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 2:20-cv-06963 Document 1 Filed 08/02/20 Page 3 of 20 Page ID #:3

1

4. Another putative class member is Jajuan Johnson. Mr. Johnson recently

2 graduated from high school in south Los Angeles. Notably, he scored sixty-two (62)

3 points in a varsity basketball game during his 2018 senior year. He is soft-spoken and

4 has no criminal record. On January 13, 2019, Johnson was a passenger in a car being

5 driven in Los Angeles when LAPD officers pulled over the vehicle, ostensibly for

6 tinted windows. Officers came up with a reason to search the car. LAPD officers then

7 blatantly lied in the police report they authored by contending that Mr. Johnson, a

8 college student, Jamba Juice employee and aspiring writer was a member of a Blood

9 street gang. The LAPD officers reasoned that because Mr. Johnson’s cousin was an

10 alleged gang member, he too must be gang affiliated. As a result, Mr. Johnson is

11 currently being prosecuted by the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office pursuant to a

12 fabricated gang allegation under Penal Code Section 186.22. Mr. Johnson

13 consistently denied any gang membership to no avail. Because of the LAPD’s false

14 claims against him, Mr. Johnson has suffered the loss of employment, damage to his

15 reputation and severe depression. If convicted, Mr. Johnson will be required to

16 register as a gang member.

17

5. Branden Costa, a young Black man, had just graduated from a Palisades

18 area high school and was a Division 1 prospect athlete. One afternoon he was

19 returning home from visiting a friend at the California Hospital in Downtown Los

20 Angeles. That day a shooting occurred at a park a short distance from Mr. Costa’s

21 home. Time-verified security footage from the hospital showed Mr. Costa exiting the

22 lobby ten minutes before the shooting. The shooting location, however, was a twenty-

23 minute commute from the hospital. Nonetheless, LAPD officers falsely accused Mr.

24 Costa of being the shooter. In an effort to unlawfully convict Mr. Costa, LAPD

25 officers prepared and submitted false police reports claiming Mr. Costa was a gang

26 member, even though LAPD officers had no credible evidence to support this claim.

27 Mr. Costa expressly told LAPD officers he was not a gang member. Although Mr.

28 Costa was acquitted of all charges, the falsely contrived gang identification followed

3 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 2:20-cv-06963 Document 1 Filed 08/02/20 Page 4 of 20 Page ID #:4

1 him and has plagued his life every day since, causing him incalculable suffering and

2 damage.

3

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4

6. This action is properly filed in the Central District of the United States

5 District Court for the redress of alleged deprivations of constitutional rights as

6 protected by 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, 1988, the Fourth and Fourteenth

7 Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the California Constitution.

8 Jurisdiction is founded on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and 1367.

9

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

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

11 in the Central District of California.

12

PARTIES

13

8. At all relevant times, SARA OCHOA is an individual residing in the

14 County of Los Angeles, California.

15

9. At all relevant times, BRANDEN COSTA is an individual residing in

16 the County of Los Angeles, California.

17

10. At all relevant times, JAJUAN JOHNSON is an individual residing in

18 the County of Los Angeles, California.

19

11. At all relevant times, ANTONIO MAY is an individual residing in the

20 County of Los Angeles, California.

21

12. At all relevant times, MICHAEL PERRY is an individual residing in the

22 County of Los Angeles, California.

23

13. The Plaintiff classes consist of: 1) approximately one thousand (1,000)

24 individuals, if not more, who were subjected to misclassification as gang members in

25 Los Angeles City reports; 2) approximately five hundred (500) individuals, if not

26 more, who were made part of a gang database; and 3) approximately five thousand

27 (5,000) individuals who were misclassified as gang associated.

28 ///

4 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 2:20-cv-06963 Document 1 Filed 08/02/20 Page 5 of 20 Page ID #:5

1

14. Defendant City of Los Angeles is a municipal corporation duly

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

3 Los Angeles Police Department is a local government entity and an agency of

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

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

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

7 federal rights claims.

8

15. Defendant Chief Michel Moore is and was, at all times relevant to this

9 action, the LAPD Chief of Police and a policymaker for his department. He is sued

10 in both his individual and official capacities.

11

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

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

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

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

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

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

17 sued in both their individual and official capacities.

18

17. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege at all times

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

20 some manner for the damages and injuries alleged herein.

21

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

22 relevant, Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, servants and employees of

23 the other Defendants and were acting at all times within the scope of their agency

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

25 employer. At all times Defendants were acting under color of state law.

26

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

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

28 unlawful action taken against Plaintiffs.

5 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 2:20-cv-06963 Document 1 Filed 08/02/20 Page 6 of 20 Page ID #:6

1

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

2

20. The City of Los Angeles Police Department has manipulated the law to

3 criminalize innocent people. Specifically, California Penal Code Section 186.22 is a

4 statute that gives police officers broad discretion to arrest individuals on the premise

5 that the person committed a crime for the benefit, at the direction and in association

6 with a criminal street gang. LAPD officers, since the inception of the statute, created

7 a unwritten custom and practice of using CPC 186.22 to criminalize innocent people

8 and classify them as gang members.

9

21. In many cases, LAPD officers falsely incriminated members of this

10 class by applying gang enhancements to simple offenses like marijuana possession

11 or receiving stolen property. This practice exposed these criminal defendants to

12 extremely harsh sentences. With exposure to aeonic terms of imprisonment, many

13 individuals accepted plea deals to lesser offenses to avoid being locked up for

14 decades. Others, who had the audacity to insist on their innocence, were found guilty

15 by juries based on perjurious LAPD officers’ testimony, then sentenced to many

16 years including, in numerous instances, life in prison. Those same individuals have

17 been forced to register annually as gang members at the very police stations where

18 they were framed in the first place.

19

22. In June of 2020, the California Department of Justice department

20 announced it suspended the use of CalGangs, citing questions about its accuracy and

21 the desire to "avoid any adverse impact on individuals, particularly in communities

22 of color." CalGangs is used by law enforcement agencies across the state of

23 California to store names and personal details of nearly eighty thousand (80,000)

24 people suspected of being active gang members or possibly associating with them

25 but has long been controversial.

26

23. LAPD records account for about 25% of all CalGangs entries.

27

24. On July 14, 2020, the California Department of Justice revoked LAPD’s

28 access to the California statewide CalGangs database. In 2016, a state audit found

6 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 2:20-cv-06963 Document 1 Filed 08/02/20 Page 7 of 20 Page ID #:7

1 that CalGangs was riddled with questionable entries and errors such as the inclusion

2 of year-old children. CalGangs represents racial profiling with little proof to back up

3 the allegations of gang membership. The majority of those in the database are Black

4 and Latino men.

5

25. On July 9, 2020, the L.A. County District Attorney's Office filed a 59-

6 count criminal complaint against 3 of the officers -- Braxton Shaw, Michael

7 Coblentz, and Nicolas Martinez. The criminal complaint accuses Braxton Shaw,

8 Michael Coblentz, and Nicolas Martinez of conspiring to file false police reports and

9 fabricate documents for court.

10

26. On July 10, 2020, an LAPD memorandum confirmed that a total of

11 twenty-four (24) LAPD officers are under investigation for falsifying police reports

12 and misclassifying civilians as gang members or gang associates.

13

27. One putative class member is Jajuan Johnson. Mr. Johnson recently

14 graduated from high school in south Los Angeles. Notably, he scored sixty (62)

15 points in a varsity basketball game during his 2018 senior year. He is soft-spoken and

16 has no criminal record.

17

28. On January 13, 2019, Johnson was a passenger in a car being driven in

18 Los Angeles when LAPD officers pulled over the vehicle, ostensibly for tinted

19 windows. Officers came up with a reason to search the car. LAPD officers then

20 blatantly lied in the police report they authored by contending that Mr. Johnson, a

21 college student, Jamba Juice employee and aspiring writer was a member of a Blood

22 street gang. The LAPD officers reasoned that because Mr. Johnson’s cousin was an

23 alleged gang member, he too must be gang affiliated.

24

29. As a result, Mr. Johnson is currently being prosecuted by the Los

25 Angeles City Attorney’s Office pursuant to a fabricated gang allegation under Penal

26 Code Section 186.22. Mr. Johnson consistently denied any gang membership to no

27 avail. Because of the LAPD’s false claims against him, Mr. Johnson has suffered the

28 loss of employment, damage to his reputation and severe depression. If convicted,

7 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 2:20-cv-06963 Document 1 Filed 08/02/20 Page 8 of 20 Page ID #:8

1 Mr. Johnson will be required to register as a gang member.

2

30. Branden Costa is another putative class member. Branden Costa is a

3 young Black man, had just graduated from a Palisades area high school and was a

4 Division 1 prospect athlete.

5

31. One afternoon he was returning home from visiting a friend at the

6 California Hospital in Downtown Los Angeles. That day a shooting occurred at a

7 park a short distance from Mr. Costa’s home. Time-verified security footage from

8 the hospital showed Mr. Costa exiting the lobby ten minutes before the shooting. The

9 shooting location, however, was a twenty-minute commute from the hospital.

10 Nonetheless, LAPD officers falsely accused Mr. Costa of being the shooter. In an

11 effort to unlawfully convict Mr. Costa, LAPD officers prepared and submitted false

12 police reports claiming Mr. Costa was a gang member, even though LAPD officers

13 had no credible evidence to support this claim. Mr. Costa expressly told LAPD

14 officers he was not a gang member. Although Mr. Costa was acquitted of all charges,

15 the falsely contrived gang identification followed him and has plagued his life every

16 day since, causing him incalculable suffering and damage.

17

32. The named Plaintiffs are suing on behalf of a class of similarly situated

18 persons throughout Los Angeles who have been victims of scofflaw Los Angeles

19 Police Department officers who filed fraudulent reports, lied under oath, and abused

20 gang database systems.

21

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

22

33. The named Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of a

23 proposed class of all other persons similarly situated pursuant to Federal Rules of

24 Civil Procedure Rule 23(b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3). The damages classes are defined as:

25

A. Approximately one thousand (1,000) individuals, if not more, who were

26 subjected to misclassification as gang members in Los Angeles City reports;

27

B. Approximately five hundred (500) individuals, if not more, who were

28 made part of a gang database; and

8 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 2:20-cv-06963 Document 1 Filed 08/02/20 Page 9 of 20 Page ID #:9

1

C. Approximately five thousand (5,000) individuals, if not more, who were

2 misclassified as gang associates.

3

34. Each class is inclusive of people who were misclassified either as gang

4 members of gang associated by LAPD officials. The first class of a presently

5 unknown number but is estimated as in excess of one thousand (1,000) individuals,

6 the second class consists of a presently unknown number but is estimated as in excess

7 of five hundred (500) individuals, and the third class consists of a presently unknown

8 number but is estimated as in excess of five thousand (5,000) individuals.

9

35. Because the issues in the three (3) classes are substantially the same and

10 arise from the same events, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures Rule 23 criteria for

11 the classes are discussed jointly without differentiating between the different classes.

12

36. Questions of law or fact common to putative class members

13 predominate over any questions affecting only individual members and a class action

14 is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating this

15 lawsuit.

16

37. The claims of the putative class satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule

17 of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and, alternatively, Rule 23(b)(2).

18

38. Defendants detained and/or arrested the putative class and sub-classes

19 as a group and treated all similarly, acting on ground applicable to the putative class.

20 The named Plaintiffs claim that the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights

21 were violated raise common question of law and fact. The named Plaintiffs claim

22 also claim their constitutional rights were also violated as a result of a long standing

23 or widespread custom and/or practice which was the moving force behind the

24 constitutional violations and therefore, the City of Los Angeles it liable under

25 municipal liability.

26

39. Questions of law and fact are common to the class and sub-classes,

27 including whether the putative class and sub-classes were misclassified as gang

28 members or gang associates.

9 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 2:20-cv-06963 Document 1 Filed 08/02/20 Page 10 of 20 Page ID #:10

1

40. The legal theories and factual predicates upon which the damages

2 classes and sub-classes seek relief predominate over any questions affecting only

3 individual members. The legal harms suffered by the named Plaintiffs and the class

4 Plaintiffs are identical.

5

41. The named Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of those of the putative class

6 and sub-class each represents, as each was engaged in or associated with peaceable

7 and lawful free speech and assembly activity when each was subjected to excessive

8 force and/or arrested.

9

42. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the common

10 class interest. The named Plaintiffs have a strong interest in achieving the relief

11 requested in this Complaint, they have no conflicts with members of the Plaintiff

12 class, and they will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

13

43. Counsel for the named Plaintiffs know of no conflicts among or between

14 members of the class, the named Plaintiffs, or the attorneys in this action.

15

44. The Defendants have acted and refused to act on grounds generally

16 applicable to the putative class.

17

45. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the class

18 would create a risk of inconsistent standards of conduct for the Defendants, thereby

19 making a class action a superior method of adjudicating this lawsuit.

20

46. Plaintiffs do not know the identities of all class members. Plaintiffs are

21 informed and believe and thereon allege the identities of class members in the

22 arrestee class may be obtained from the personal information compelled by

23 Defendants through arrest records.

24

47. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the LAPD

25 officers acted in accordance with orders given by supervisors from the highest

26 command positions, in accordance with policies and procedures instituted by the

27 LAPD and the City of Los Angeles.

28 ///

10 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 2:20-cv-06963 Document 1 Filed 08/02/20 Page 11 of 20 Page ID #:11

1

48. As a direct and proximate cause of the conduct described herein, the

2 named individual Plaintiffs have been denied their constitutional statutory, and legal

3 rights as stated herein, and have suffered general and special damages, including but

4 not limited to, mental and emotional distress, physical injuries and bodily harm, pain,

5 fear, humiliation, embarrassment, discomfort, and anxiety and other damages in an

6 amount according to proof.

7

49. Defendants’ acts were willful, wanton, malicious, and oppressive, and

8 done with conscious or reckless disregard for, and deliberate indifference to,

9 Plaintiffs’ rights.

10

50. Defendants’ polices practices, customs, conduct and acts alleged herein

11 resulted in, and will continue to result in, irreparable injury the Plaintiffs, including

12 but not limited to violation of their constitutional and statutory rights. Plaintiffs have

13 no plain, adequate, or complete remedy at law to address the wrong described herein.

14 The Plaintiffs and class members intend in the future to exercise their constitutional

15 rights of freedom of speech and association by engaging in expressive activities in

16 the City of Los Angeles. Defendants’ conduct described herein has created

17 uncertainty among Plaintiffs with respect to their exercise now and in the future of

18 these constitutional rights.

19

51. An actual controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants in that

20 Plaintiffs contend that the policies, practices, and conduct of Defendants alleged

21 herein are unlawful and unconstitutional, whereas Plaintiffs are informed and believe

22 that Defendants contend that said policies, practices, and conduct are lawful and

23 constitutional. Plaintiffs seek a declaration of rights with respect to this controversy.

24

52. In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(a) the

25 members of the class are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.

26 Plaintiffs do not know the exact number of class members. Plaintiffs are informed

27 and believe and thereon allege that there are more than six thousand five hundred

28 (6,500) individuals who were classified as gang members or gang associates by the

11 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 2:20-cv-06963 Document 1 Filed 08/02/20 Page 12 of 20 Page ID #:12

1 Los Angeles Police Department. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon

2 allege that the number of persons in the proposed class is in the thousands.

3

53. In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(a), there

4 are questions of fact common to the class. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and

5 thereon allege that the common questions of fact include, but are not limited to the

6 following: (1) individuals who were subjected to misclassification as gang members

7 in Los Angeles City reports; (2) individuals who were made part of a gang database;

8 and (3) individuals who were misclassified as gang associates.

9

54. In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(a), there

10 are questions of law common to the class. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and

11 thereon allege that the common questions of law include but are not limited to the

12 following: (1) Whether the City of Los Angeles violated the Fourth Amendment

13 rights of people misclassified as gang members or gang associates; (2) Whether the

14 City of Los Angeles violated the Fourteenth Amendment rights of people

15 misclassified as gang members or gang associates; (4) Whether the City of Los

16 Angeles violated the First Amendment rights of people misclassified as gang

17 members or gang associates.

18

55. In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(a) the

19 claims of the representative plaintiffs are typical of the class. Plaintiffs were victims

20 of at least twenty-seven (27) Los Angeles Police Department officers, including

21 Braxton Shaw, Michael Coblentz, and Nicholas Martinez who have already been

22 charged with fifty-nine (59) criminal counts. Los Angeles Police Department officers

23 lied on field interview cards by classifying people who are not gang members, as

24 gang members, and/or classifying people who are not associated with a gang as “gang

25 associates.”

26

56. Thus, Plaintiffs have the same interests and have suffered the same type

27 of damages as the class members. Plaintiffs' claims are based upon the same or

28 similar legal theories as the claims of the class members. Each class member suffered

12 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 2:20-cv-06963 Document 1 Filed 08/02/20 Page 13 of 20 Page ID #:13

1 actual damages from being subjected to misclassification as gang members or gang

2 associates.

3

57. In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23 (a), the

4 representative plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

5 The interests of the representative plaintiffs are consistent with and not antagonistic

6 to the interests of the class.

7

58. In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(b)(1)(A),

8 prosecutions of separate actions by individual members of the class would create a

9 risk that inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of

10 the class would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the parties opposing

11 the class.

12

59. In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(b)(1)(B),

13 prosecutions of separate actions by individual members of the class would create a

14 risk of adjudications with respect to individual members of the class which would, as

15 a practical matter, substantially impair or impede the interests of the other members

16 of the class to protect their interests.

17

60. In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(b)(2),

18 plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege the defendants have acted on

19 grounds generally applicable to the class.

20

61. In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(b)(3), the

21 questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any

22 questions affecting only individual members, and this class action is superior to other

23 available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy between

24 the parties. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege that the interest of

25 class members in individually controlling the prosecution of a separate action is low

26 in that most class members would be unable to individually prosecute any action at

27 all. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege that the amounts at stake

28 for individuals are such that separate suits would be impracticable in that most

13 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 2:20-cv-06963 Document 1 Filed 08/02/20 Page 14 of 20 Page ID #:14

1 members of the class will not be able to find counsel to represent them. Plaintiffs are

2 informed and believe and allege that it is desirable to concentrate all litigation in one

3 forum because all of the claims arise in the same location, i.e., the City of Los

4 Angeles. It will promote judicial efficiency to resolve the common questions of law

5 and fact in one forum, rather than in multiple courts.

6

62. Plaintiffs do not know the identities of all class members. Plaintiffs are

7 informed and believe, and thereon allege the identities of the class members are

8 ascertainable from the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, the Los

9 Angeles City Attorney's Office and/or LAPD records, in particular the computer

10 records used to track who are or were alleged gang members and alleged gang

11 associates.

12

63. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege that Los Angeles

13 County District Attorney’s Office, the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office and/or

14 LAPD records reflect the identities, including addresses and telephone numbers, of

15 the persons who are or were alleged gang members and alleged gang associates.

16

64. Plaintiffs know of no difficulty that will be encountered in the

17 management of this litigation that would preclude its maintenance as a class action.

18 The class action is superior to any other available means to resolve the issues raised

19 on behalf of the class. The class action will be manageable because reliable records

20 systems exist from which to ascertain the members of the class. Liability can be

21 determined on a class-wide basis. Damages can be determined on a class-wide basis

22 using a damages matrix set by a jury, or by trying the damages of a statistically valid

23 sample of the class to a jury and extrapolating those damages to the class as a whole.

24 Moreover, plaintiffs are represented by counsel with class action litigation

25 experience, particularly against the City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Police

26 Department.

27

65. In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(b)(3),

28 class members must be furnished with the best notice practicable under the

14 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 2:20-cv-06963 Document 1 Filed 08/02/20 Page 15 of 20 Page ID #:15

1 circumstances, including individual notice to all members who can be identified

2 through reasonable effort. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that LA City Attorney's

3 Office and/or LAPD computer records, and certainly police reports and F.1. cards

4 etc., contain a last known address for class members. Plaintiffs contemplate that

5 individual notice be given to class members at such last known address by first class

6 mail. Plaintiffs contemplate that the notice inform class members of the following:

7

a. The pendency of the class action, and the issues common to the class;

8

b. The nature of the action;

9

c. Their right to 'opt out' of the action within a given time, in which event

10 they will not be bound by a decision rendered in the class action;

11

d. Their right, if they do not 'opt out,' to be represented by their own counsel

12 and enter an appearance in the case; otherwise, they will be represented by the named

13 plaintiffs and their counsel; and

14

e. Their right, if they do not 'opt out,' to share in any recovery in favor of the

15 class, and conversely to be bound by any judgment on the common issues adverse to the

16 class.

17

66. All of the following claims for relief are asserted against all Defendants

18

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

19

FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS

20

(42 U.S.C. § 1983)

21

(ALL DEFENDANTS)

22

67. Plaintiffs repeats and re-alleges each allegation in all the preceding

23 paragraphs of this Complaint with same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.

24

68. In subjecting plaintiffs and class members to the unnecessary, unlawful,

25 demeaning, and outrageous seizures and/or searches when plaintiffs and class

26 members went outside, defendants, and each of them, violated plaintiffs' and class

27 members' rights to be secure in their persons against unreasonable searches and

28 seizures, as guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

15 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 2:20-cv-06963 Document 1 Filed 08/02/20 Page 16 of 20 Page ID #:16

1 States Constitution. Therefore, plaintiffs and class members are entitled to bring suit

2 and recover damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983.

3

69. As a direct and proximate cause of the aforementioned acts, plaintiffs

4 and class members were damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

5

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

6

FOR VIOLATION OF SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS

7

(42 U.S.C. § 1983)

8

(ALL DEFENDANTS)

9

70. Plaintiffs repeats and re-alleges each allegation in all the preceding

10 paragraphs of this Complaint with same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.

11

71. In subjecting plaintiffs and class members to the unnecessary, unlawful,

12 demeaning, and outrageous confinement and prohibition from going outside and/or

13 seizure, detention arrest, jailing and/or prosecution when plaintiffs and class

14 members went outside, defendants, and each of them, violated plaintiffs' and class

15 members' rights to travel and move freely about this state and/or the several states,

16 as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Therefore, plaintiffs and class

17 members are entitled to bring suit and recover damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983.

18

72. As a direct and proximate cause of the aforementioned acts, plaintiffs

19 and class members were damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

20

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

21

FIRST AMENDMENT

22

(42 U.S.C. § 1983)

23

(ALL DEFENDANTS)

24

73. Plaintiffs repeats and re-alleges each allegation in all the preceding

25 paragraphs of this Complaint with same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.

26

74. In subjecting plaintiffs and class members to the unnecessary, unlawful,

27 demeaning, and outrageous confinement and prohibition from going outside and/or

28 seizure, detention arrest, jailing and/or prosecution when plaintiffs and class

16 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 2:20-cv-06963 Document 1 Filed 08/02/20 Page 17 of 20 Page ID #:17

1 members went outside, defendants, and each of them, violated plaintiffs' and class

2 members' rights to freely associate, communicate and assemble with persons, at

3 times, and in places of their choosing, as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth

4 Amendments to the United States Constitution. Therefore, plaintiffs and class

5 members are entitled to bring suit and recover damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983.

6

75. As a direct and proximate cause of the aforementioned acts, plaintiffs

7 and class members were damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

8

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

9

MUNICIPAL LIABILITY (MONELL)

10

(42 U.S.C. § 1983)

11

(By Plaintiffs against Defendant CITY OF LOS ANGELES)

12

76. Plaintiffs repeats and re-alleges each allegation in all the preceding

13 paragraphs of this Complaint with same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.

14

77. The City, through Chief Moore, and his predecessors, including former

15 Chief Charles Beck, and the LAPD, have failed to train their officers in the

16 constitutional treatment of innocent civilians vis-a-vis misclassification of Los

17 Angeles City residents as gang members or gang associates as revealed by the above

18 allegations. The City has a custom and policy of misclassifying people as gang

19 members or gang associates, submitting fraudulent reports affirming the

20 misclassification, inputting fraudulent information into gang databases and

21 encouraging LAPD officers into further perpetuating the foregoing. The City is well

22 aware of its constitutional duties. The need for training and discipline to enforce

23 Constitutional guarantees in such circumstances is obvious and necessary.

24

78. On information and belief, Chief Moore and his predecessors delegated

25 responsibility and authority to persons within his command staff to act as the final

26 policy maker in determining whether to terminate, reprimand, or terminate LAPD

27 officers who were falsely classifying people and filing false reports which unlawfully

28 identified individuals. The persons who made these decisions, acted as the delegated

17 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 2:20-cv-06963 Document 1 Filed 08/02/20 Page 18 of 20 Page ID #:18

1 policy maker for the City of Los Angeles on these matters. There was no time,

2 opportunity, or procedure for anyone other than the policymakers to review or revise

3 the decisions prior to their final implementation.

4

79. Moreover, on and for some time prior to June 1, 2020 (and continuing

5 to the present date), Defendants CITY, and DOES 1-10, acting with gross negligence

6 and with reckless and deliberate indifference to the rights and liberties of the public

7 in general, and of Plaintiffs, and of persons in their class, situation and comparable

8 position in particular, knowingly maintained, enforced and applied an official

9 recognized custom, policy, and practice of:

10

A. Unreasonably detaining and unreasonably arresting Los Angeles City

11 civilians under the guise that said civilians were “gang members;”

12

B. Unreasonably detaining and unreasonably arresting Los Angeles City

13 and County residents under the guise that said civilians were “gang associates;”

14

C. Falsifying official CITY reports affirming the misclassification of a

15 civilian as gang members or gang associates;

16

D. Falsifying information placed into statewide California gang databases

17 including CalGangs by the misclassification of a civilians as a gang members or gang

18 associates;

19

E. Committing perjury in open court by further affirming the

20 misclassification of civilians who were facing criminal charges;

21

F. Acquiescing, ratifying, and condoning the imposition of a criminal

22 sentencing enhancements of an individuals who were misclassified as a gang

23 members or gang associates.

24

G. Inadequately supervising, training, controlling, assigning, and

25 disciplining CITY employees and other personnel, in gang intelligence, the reporting

26 of gang intelligence, and the misclassification of civilians as gang members or gang

27 associates;

28 ///

18 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 2:20-cv-06963 Document 1 Filed 08/02/20 Page 19 of 20 Page ID #:19

1

H. By maintaining grossly inadequate procedures for reporting,

2 supervising, investigating, reviewing, disciplining and controlling the intentional

3 misconduct by Defendants.

4

I. By having and maintaining the aforementioned unconstitutional policy,

5 custom, and practice with a deliberate indifference to individuals' safety and rights;

6

80. By reason of the policies and practices of Plaintiffs and the class

7 Plaintiffs represent were severely injured and were subjected to constitutional

8 violations while the CITY ratified and condoned said conduct. The aforementioned

9 policies and practices of Defendants, including the custom, policy and practice of

10 Defendant CITY in allowing its officers to misclassify civilians and file false reports

11 was a violation of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution.

12

81. Defendants CITY and DOES 1-10, together with various other officials,

13 whether named or unnamed, had either actual or constructive knowledge of the

14 deficient policies, practices and customs alleged in the paragraphs above. Despite

15 having knowledge as stated above, these defendants condoned, tolerated and through

16 actions and inactions thereby ratified such policies. Said defendants also acted with

17 deliberate indifference to the foreseeable effects and consequences of these policies

18 with respect to the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs, and other individuals similarly

19 situated.

20

82. Accordingly, Defendants CITY and Does 1-10 each are liable to

21 Plaintiffs for compensatory damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

22

83. Plaintiffs further claim all of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs

23 incurred and to be incurred in Plaintiffs presenting, maintaining and prosecuting this

24 action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1988.

25

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

26

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests entry of judgment in their favor and against

27 Defendants as follows:

28 A. General and special damages according to proof;

19 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 2:20-cv-06963 Document 1 Filed 08/02/20 Page 20 of 20 Page ID #:20

1 B. As against the individual defendants only, punitive damages according to

2 C. For interest;

3 D. For reasonable costs of this suit and attorneys' fees, including pursuant to 42

4

U.S.C. § 1988;

5 E. For all other damages allowed under federal and state law and;

6 F. For such further other relief as the Court may deem just, proper, and

7

appropriate.

8 Respectfully Submitted,

9 Dated: August 2, 2020

THE JUSTICE X LAW GROUP

10

11

12

By: HUMBERTO GUIZAR

13

AUSTIN R. DOVE STEPHEN A. KING

14

CHRISTIAN CONTRERAS

Attorney for Plaintiffs

15

16

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

17

Plaintiffs hereby demands a trial by jury.

18 Dated: August 1, 2020

THE JUSTICE X LAW GROUP

19

20

21

By: HUMBERTO GUIZAR

22

AUSTIN R. DOVE STEPHEN A. KING

23

CHRISTIAN CONTRERAS

Attorney for Plaintiffs

24

25

26

27

28

20 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 2:20-UcNvI-T0E6D9S6T3ATEDSoDcISuTmRIeCnTtC2OURFTil,eCdEN0T8R/A0L2D/2IS0TRIPCTagOeF C1AoLIfF3ORNPIAage ID #:21
CIVIL COVER SHEET

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS ( Check box if you are representing yourself )

DEFENDANTS ( Check box if you are representing yourself )

SARA OCHOA, BRANDEN COSTA, JAJUAN JOHNSON, ANTONIO MAY, and MICHAEL PERR, individually on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Los Angeles
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a legal subdivision of the State of California;CHIEF MICHEL MOORE; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Los Angeles
(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address and Telephone Number) If you are representing yourself, provide the same information.

Attorneys (Firm Name, Address and Telephone Number) If you are representing yourself, provide the same information.

Humberto M. Guizar, Esq., (SBN: 125769); Christian Contreras, Esq., (SBN:

330269)

THE JUSTICE X LAW GROUP

3500 W. Beverly Blvd., Montebello, CA 90640 - Telephone: (323) 725-1151

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in one box only.)

1. U.S. Government Plaintiff

3. Federal Question (U.S. Government Not a Party)

2. U.S. Government Defendant

4. Diversity (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES-For Diversity Cases Only

(Place an X in one box for plaintiff and one for defendant)

Citizen of This State

PTF 1

DEF 1

Incorporated or Principal Place of Business in this State

PTF DEF

4

4

Citizen of Another State
Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Country

2

2 Incorporated and Principal Place

of Business in Another State

3

3 Foreign Nation

5

5

6

6

IV. ORIGIN (Place an X in one box only.)

1. Original

2. Removed from

3. Remanded from

Proceeding

State Court

Appellate Court

4. Reinstated or Reopened

5. Transferred from Another District (Specify)

6. Multidistrict Litigation Transfer

8. Multidistrict Litigation Direct File

V. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT: JURY DEMAND:

Yes

No (Check "Yes" only if demanded in complaint.)

CLASS ACTION under F.R.Cv.P. 23:

Yes No

MONEY DEMANDED IN COMPLAINT: $ According to Proof

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and write a brief statement of cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity.)

Fourth Amendment Violations (42 U.S.C. § 1983); Fourteenth Amendment Violations (42 U.S.C. § 1983); First Amendment Violations (42 U.S.C. § 1983); Municipal Liabilit (Monell) (42 U.S.C. § 1983);

VII. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in one box only).

OTHER STATUTES
375 False Claims Act
376 Qui Tam (31 USC 3729(a))
400 State Reapportionment 410 Antitrust 430 Banks and Banking 450 Commerce/ICC Rates/Etc. 460 Deportation 470 Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Org. 480 Consumer Credit 490 Cable/Sat TV
850 Securities/Commodities/Exchange
890 Other Statutory Actions 891 Agricultural Acts 893 Environmental Matters 895 Freedom of Info. Act 896 Arbitration
899 Admin. Procedures Act/Review of Appeal of Agency Decision 950 Constitutionality of State Statutes

CONTRACT

REAL PROPERTY CONT.

110 Insurance

240 Torts to Land

120 Marine
130 Miller Act 140 Negotiable Instrument 150 Recovery of Overpayment & Enforcement of Judgment
151 Medicare Act
152 Recovery of Defaulted Student Loan (Excl. Vet.)
153 Recovery of Overpayment of Vet. Benefits 160 Stockholders' Suits
190 Other Contract 195 Contract Product Liability 196 Franchise REAL PROPERTY 210 Land Condemnation 220 Foreclosure 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment

245 Tort Product Liability 290 All Other Real Property
TORTS PERSONAL INJURY
310 Airplane
315 Airplane Product Liability 320 Assault, Libel & Slander 330 Fed. Employers' Liability
340 Marine 345 Marine Product Liability
350 Motor Vehicle 355 Motor Vehicle Product Liability 360 Other Personal Injury 362 Personal InjuryMed Malpratice 365 Personal InjuryProduct Liability 367 Health Care/ Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability 368 Asbestos Personal Injury Product Liability

IMMIGRATION 462 Naturalization Application
465 Other Immigration Actions
TORTS PERSONAL PROPERTY
370 Other Fraud
371 Truth in Lending
380 Other Personal Property Damage
385 Property Damage Product Liability
BANKRUPTCY 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 423 Withdrawal 28 USC 157
CIVIL RIGHTS 440 Other Civil Rights 441 Voting
442 Employment 443 Housing/ Accommodations 445 American with DisabilitiesEmployment 446 American with Disabilities-Other 448 Education

PRISONER PETITIONS
Habeas Corpus:
463 Alien Detainee 510 Motions to Vacate Sentence 530 General 535 Death Penalty
Other: 540 Mandamus/Other
550 Civil Rights 555 Prison Condition 560 Civil Detainee Conditions of Confinement FORFEITURE/PENALTY 625 Drug Related Seizure of Property 21 USC 881 690 Other
LABOR 710 Fair Labor Standards Act 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations
740 Railway Labor Act
751 Family and Medical Leave Act 790 Other Labor Litigation 791 Employee Ret. Inc. Security Act

PROPERTY RIGHTS
820 Copyrights
830 Patent 835 Patent - Abbreviated New Drug Application 840 Trademark
SOCIAL SECURITY 861 HIA (1395ff) 862 Black Lung (923)
863 DIWC/DIWW (405 (g)) 864 SSID Title XVI
865 RSI (405 (g))
FEDERAL TAX SUITS 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff or Defendant) 871 IRS-Third Party 26 USC 7609

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: CV-71 (05/17)

Case Number:

CIVIL COVER SHEET

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:20-UcNvI-T0E6D9S6T3ATEDSoDcISuTmRIeCnTtC2OURFTil,eCdEN0T8R/A0L2D/2IS0TRIPCTagOeF C2AoLIfF3ORNPIAage ID #:22
CIVIL COVER SHEET

VIII. VENUE: Your answers to the questions below will determine the division of the Court to which this case will be initially assigned. This initial assignment is subject
to change, in accordance with the Court's General Orders, upon review by the Court of your Complaint or Notice of Removal.

QUESTION A: Was this case removed

from state court?

Yes

No

If "no, " skip to Question B. If "yes," check the box to the right that applies, enter the corresponding division in response to Question E, below, and continue from there.

STATE CASE WAS PENDING IN THE COUNTY OF:
Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, or San Luis Obispo Orange Riverside or San Bernardino

INITIAL DIVISION IN CACD IS:
Western Southern Eastern

QUESTION B: Is the United States, or B.1. Do 50% or more of the defendants who reside in one of its agencies or employees, a the district reside in Orange Co.?

PLAINTIFF in this action?

check one of the boxes to the right

Yes

No

If "no, " skip to Question C. If "yes," answer Question B.1, at right.

B.2. Do 50% or more of the defendants who reside in the district reside in Riverside and/or San Bernardino Counties? (Consider the two counties together.)

check one of the boxes to the right

YES. Your case will initially be assigned to the Southern Division. Enter "Southern" in response to Question E, below, and continue from there.
NO. Continue to Question B.2.
YES. Your case will initially be assigned to the Eastern Division. Enter "Eastern" in response to Question E, below, and continue from there.
NO. Your case will initially be assigned to the Western Division. Enter "Western" in response to Question E, below, and continue from there.

QUESTION C: Is the United States, or C.1. Do 50% or more of the plaintiffs who reside in the one of its agencies or employees, a district reside in Orange Co.?

DEFENDANT in this action?

check one of the boxes to the right

Yes

No

YES. Your case will initially be assigned to the Southern Division. Enter "Southern" in response to Question E, below, and continue from there.
NO. Continue to Question C.2.

If "no, " skip to Question D. If "yes," answer Question C.1, at right.

C.2. Do 50% or more of the plaintiffs who reside in the district reside in Riverside and/or San Bernardino Counties? (Consider the two counties together.)

YES. Your case will initially be assigned to the Eastern Division. Enter "Eastern" in response to Question E, below, and continue from there.

check one of the boxes to the right
QUESTION D: Location of plaintiffs and defendants?

NO. Your case will initially be assigned to the Western Division. Enter "Western" in response to Question E, below, and continue from there.

A. Orange County

B. Riverside or San Bernardino County

C. Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, or San Luis Obispo County

Indicate the location(s) in which 50% or more of plaintiffs who reside in this district reside. (Check up to two boxes, or leave blank if none of these choices apply.) Indicate the location(s) in which 50% or more of defendants who reside in this district reside. (Check up to two boxes, or leave blank if none of these choices apply.)

D.1. Is there at least one answer in Column A?

Yes

No

If "yes," your case will initially be assigned to the SOUTHERN DIVISION.
Enter "Southern" in response to Question E, below, and continue from there. If "no," go to question D2 to the right.

D.2. Is there at least one answer in Column B?

Yes

No

If "yes," your case will initially be assigned to the EASTERN DIVISION.
Enter "Eastern" in response to Question E, below. If "no," your case will be assigned to the WESTERN DIVISION.
Enter "Western" in response to Question E, below.

QUESTION E: Initial Division?

INITIAL DIVISION IN CACD

Enter the initial division determined by Question A, B, C, or D above: QUESTION F: Northern Counties?

WESTERN

Do 50% or more of plaintiffs or defendants in this district reside in Ventura, Santa Barbara, or San Luis Obispo counties?

Yes

CV-71 (05/17)

CIVIL COVER SHEET

No Page 2 of 3

Case 2:20-UcNvI-T0E6D9S6T3ATEDSoDcISuTmRIeCnTtC2OURFTil,eCdEN0T8R/A0L2D/2IS0TRIPCTagOeF C3AoLIfF3ORNPIAage ID #:23
CIVIL COVER SHEET

IX(a). IDENTICAL CASES: Has this action been previously filed in this court?

NO

YES

If yes, list case number(s):

IX(b). RELATED CASES: Is this case related (as defined below) to any civil or criminal case(s) previously filed in this court?

NO

YES

If yes, list case number(s):

Civil cases are related when they (check all that apply): A. Arise from the same or a closely related transaction, happening, or event; B. Call for determination of the same or substantially related or similar questions of law and fact; or C. For other reasons would entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by different judges.
Note: That cases may involve the same patent, trademark, or copyright is not, in itself, sufficient to deem cases related.

A civil forfeiture case and a criminal case are related when they (check all that apply):
A. Arise from the same or a closely related transaction, happening, or event;
B. Call for determination of the same or substantially related or similar questions of law and fact; or C. Involve one or more defendants from the criminal case in common and would entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by different judges.

X. SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY (OR SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANT): Humberto Guizar

DATE: August 2, 2020

Notice to Counsel/Parties: The submission of this Civil Cover Sheet is required by Local Rule 3-1. This Form CV-71 and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. For more detailed instructions, see separate instruction sheet (CV-071A).

Key to Statistical codes relating to Social Security Cases:

Nature of Suit Code Abbreviation

861

HIA

Substantive Statement of Cause of Action All claims for health insurance benefits (Medicare) under Title 18, Part A, of the Social Security Act, as amended. Also, include claims by hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, etc., for certification as providers of services under the program. (42 U.S.C. 1935FF(b))

862

BL

All claims for "Black Lung" benefits under Title 4, Part B, of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969. (30 U.S.C.

923)

863

DIWC

All claims filed by insured workers for disability insurance benefits under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as amended; plus all claims filed for child's insurance benefits based on disability. (42 U.S.C. 405 (g))

863

DIWW

All claims filed for widows or widowers insurance benefits based on disability under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as amended. (42 U.S.C. 405 (g))

864

SSID

All claims for supplemental security income payments based upon disability filed under Title 16 of the Social Security Act, as amended.

865

RSI

All claims for retirement (old age) and survivors benefits under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as amended.

(42 U.S.C. 405 (g))

CV-71 (05/17)

CIVIL COVER SHEET

Page 3 of 3