Case 2:13-cv-06606-BMS Document 1 Filed 11/13/13 Page 1 of 24

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PAULJ.HETZNECKER,ESQUIRE Pennsylvania Attorney ID No. 49990 1420 Walnut Street, Suite 911 Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 893-9640
LAWRENCE S. KRASNER, ESQUIRE Pennsylvania Attorney ID No. 49667 LLOYD LONG III, ESQUIRE Pennsylvania Attorney ID No. 92934 Krasner, Hughes & Long, LLC 1221 Locust Street, Suite 301 Philadelphia, PA 19107
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Noel Augustine; Michael Barankovich; Moshe Bitterman; Will Danvall; Gabrielle Dugan; Meggan Durst; Russell Ebright; Toorjo Ghose; Sean Goins; Alex Grosskurth; Kyle Hempe; Adam Hill;

No. 13 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
1

Case 2:13-cv-06606-BMS Document 1 Filed 11/13/13 Page 2 of 24
Emma Johnson; Dominick Kain; Timothy Kyle; Daniel Ludwig; Collin Magness; Shawn McMonigle; Michael Morrison; Benjamin Neate; Jason Russell; James Savage; Dustin Slaughter; Walter Smolarek; Gwen Snyder; AND Kevin Stutman
All c/o Krasner, Hughes, & Long, LLC 1221 Locust St., Suite 301 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Plaintiffs
v.
Commissioner Charles Ramsey; Deputy Police Commissioner Kevin Bethel; Captain William V. Fisher
Badge No. 82; Police Officer Joseph Sposato
Badge No. 5368;
2

Case 2:13-cv-06606-BMS Document 1 Filed 11/13/13 Page 3 of 24
Police Officer Darryl Crawford Badge No. 7332;
Police Officer Rhonda C. Smith Badge No. 1373;
Police Officer Darrell Sampson Badge No. 8036;
Police Officer Angel Ortiz Badge No. 9556;
Police Officer Joseph Sisca Badge No. 9547;
Police Officers John Doe 1-25 Badge Nos. Presently Unknown;
PoUce Officers Jane Doe 1-25 Badge Nos. Presently Unknown;
AND CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
A Municipal Corporation All c/o City of Philadelphia Law Dept.
1515 Arch St., 14th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19107
Defendants
COMPLAINT INTRODUCTION 1. The cornerstone of our constitutional democracy is firmly rooted in the right to free speech embodied by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution provides the principal bulwark against the government's power to intrude upon the free expression of ideas, particularly dissenting
3

Case 2:13-cv-06606-BMS Document 1 Filed 11/13/13 Page 4 of 24
ideas. Born of the struggle against tyranny over two centuries ago, the First Amendment embodies the heart and soul of our democracy; the right to speak freely, to assemble in protest, and to express shared ideas through a collective public voice. Those voices often express unpopular, dissenting views. Drafted in 1787 and ratified by the states in 1791, the First Amendment states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." U.S. CONST. amend. I 2. Without this protection, freedom cannot survive. Ensuring that the right to political protest is protected under the First Amendment, courts of the United States have long recognized that free expression and association includes occupying public spaces in order to protest, demonstrate, march, and openly express opinions on political matters of public concern. 3. In September of 2011, inspired by the "Arab Spring" during which thousands rose up against tyranny and oppression in the Middle East, a small group of protestors occupied a park in New York City, New York. The original protestors came to demonstrate against the emergent corporate state and the demise our democracy. Emblematic of this popular outcry against corporate power, greed, and the vast inequities in wealth and power between the rich and poor in this country, was the recognition that the majority of the people in this country, the "99%", had little or no say over the decisions made by the wealthy that compromise less than" 1%" of the population. Like the spontaneous spark, a movement spread across manifesting in hundreds of Occupy encampments.
4

Case 2:13-cv-06606-BMS Document 1 Filed 11/13/13 Page 5 of 24
4. Here in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the cradle of liberty, Occupy Philadelphia participants gathered to express their individual and collective voices regarding some of the most important political, economic and social issues of our time. As with other Occupy associations throughout this country, Occupy Philadelphia emerged as association of individuals protesting against the control that corporations have over our government, usurping our democracy. Formed spontaneously in early October 2011, the association, known as "Occupy Philly," organized as a protest gathering, frequently referred to as an encampment, on Dilworth Plaza, a public forum, outside of City Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. This gathering (or encampment) served as an ongoing demonstration in a public space, an expression of the cherished freedoms we enjoy under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. In response, the Philadelphia Police Department, through orders from Defendant Commissioner Charles Ramsey, Deputy Commissioner Bethel, and other known and presently unknown police officials, in conjunction with federal authorities, maintained a constant presence through direct and undercover surveillance, as well as infiltration, of the Occupy Philly demonstrators during the course of the seven week protest. During this seven week gathering, there were daily organizational meetings, seminars, and marches, many originating from this public space. These marches and demonstrations exemplified the long storied tradition of free expression, as they encompassed various matters of great public concern, such as the predatory lending practices by major banks, the fleecing of the Philadelphia School District by some of these same banks, the concentration of corporate power in companies, like Comcast, headquartered here in Philadelphia, as well as the history of police brutality experienced by the citizens of Philadelphia, and many other issues. This complaint seeks
5

Case 2:13-cv-06606-BMS Document 1 Filed 11/13/13 Page 6 of 24
compensation for each of the Plaintiffs for the violations of their individual rights as set forth in this complaint.
JURISDICTION 5. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction is founded upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1334(1), (3), and (4). Plaintiffs further invoke the supplemental jurisdiction under 28 United States Code § 1367 (a) to hear and decide claims under state law.
PARTIES 6. Plaintiffs, Noel Augustine, Michael Barankovich, Moshe Bitterman, Will Darwall,
Gabrielle Dugan, Meggan DUTst, Russell Ebright, Toorjo ("TJ.") Ghose, Sean Goins, Alex Grosskurth, Kyle Hempe, Adam Hill, Emma Johnson, Dominick Kain, Timothy Kyle, Daniel Ludwig, Collin Magness, Shawn McMonigle, Michael Morrison, Benjamin Neate, Jason Russell, James Savage, Dustin Slaughter, Walter Smolarek, Gwen Snyder, and Kevin Stutman are adult citizens and were present in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania at all times relevant to this Complaint. 7. Defendant, Commissioner Charles Ramsey, is and was at all time relevant to this complaint Commissioner of the Philadelphia Police Department and acting under the color of state law. He is being sued both in his individual and official capacities. 8. Defendant, Deputy Commissioner Kevin Bethel, is and was at all time relevant to this complaint a Deputy Commissioner of the Philadelphia Police Department and acting
6

Case 2:13-cv-06606-BMS Document 1 Filed 11/13/13 Page 7 of 24
under the color of state law. He is being sued both in his individual and official capacities. 9. Defendant, Captain William Fisher, Badge No. 82, is and was at all time relevant to this complaint Captain of the Philadelphia Police Department and acting under the color of state law. He is being sued both in his individual and official capacities. 10. Defendant, Police Officer Joseph Sposato, Badge No. 5368 is and was at all time relevant to this complaint a member of the Philadelphia Police Department and acting under the color of state law. He is being sued both in his individual and official capacities. I I. Defendant, Police Officer Darryl Crawford, Badge No. 7332 is and was at all time relevant to this complaint a member of the Philadelphia Police Department and acting under the color of state law. He is being sued both in his individual and official capacities. 12. Defendant, Police Officer Darrell Sampson, Badge No. 8036 is and was at all time relevant to this complaint a member of the Philadelphia Police Department and acting under the color of state law. He is being sued both in his individual and official capacities. 13. Defendant, Police Officer Angel Ortiz, Badge No. 9556 is and was at all time relevant to this complaint a member of the Philadelphia Police Department and acting under the color of state law. He is being sued both in his individual and official capacities. 14. Defendant, Police Officer Joseph Sisca, Badge No. 9547 is and was at all time relevant to this complaint a member of the Philadelphia Police Department and acting
7

Case 2:13-cv-06606-BMS Document 1 Filed 11/13/13 Page 8 of 24
under the color of state law. He is being sued both m his individual and official capacities. 15. Defendant, Police Officer Rhonda Smith, Badge No. 1373 IS and was at all time relevant to this complaint a member of the Philadelphia Police Department and acting under the color of state law. She is being sued both in her individual and official capacities. 16. Defendant Police Officers John Doe 1-25 and Jane Doe 1-25 are and were at all time relevant to this complaint a member of the Philadelphia Police Department and acting under the color of state law. The identities of these officers are presently unknown, but are expected to be determined with reasonably certainty during the course of discovery. They are being sued in their individual and official capacities. 17. Defendant, City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania is a municipal corporation and the public employer of the individually named Defendants. He is being sued both in his individual and official capacities.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
18. Occupy Philadelphia is an association of protestors who gathered together on or about October 6, 2011 outside of City Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to demonstrate against the vast inequity in wealth in this country. This gathering in a public space was a political statement addressing issues of great public concern and an exercise of First Amendment rights. In the cradle of liberty, the Occupy Philly members gathered in protest to express their individual and collective voices regarding some of the most
8

Case 2:13-cv-06606-BMS Document 1 Filed 11/13/13 Page 9 of 24
importance issues of public concern facing this nation. The Philadelphia Police, in conjunction with federal authorities, maintained constant surveillance over the protestors during the course of the seven weeks the Occupy Philly protestors demonstrated outside of City Hall's Dilworth Plaza, a public space in the heart of the Center City District in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. During the seven-week Occupy Philly demonstration, protestors participated in numerous peaceful marches and demonstrations throughout the City of Philadelphia. These peaceful marches and demonstrations offered protests on various matters of great public concern. While individuals engaged in these peaceful marches throughout the City of Philadelphia, they would travel through the streets exercising their First Amendment rights, always shadowed by a massive contingent of Philadelphia police officers, including, but not limited to, officers from the Philadelphia Police Civil Affairs Unit, bicycle patrols, intelligence unit, and other uniformed as well as officers acting in an undercover capacity. The contingent of police was assisted by various federal agencies including the FBI, Department of Homeland Security and personnel from the Federal Terrorism Task Force. Based on recent revelations, upon information and belief, the Plaintiffs assert that this assistance may have included illegal surveillance by federal authorities. 19. On November 27, 2011, the Mayor of Philadelphia, Michael Nutter, along with Defendant Police Commissioner Ramsey issued an order evicting the Occupy Philly protestors from Dilworth Plaza, a public space, adjacent to City Hall in the Center City District of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In conjunction with that order, the named and unnamed Defendants, such as Commissioner Ramsey. Deputy Commissioner Bethel, Captain Fisher, and other ranking members of the Philadelphia Police Department, in
9

Case 2:13-cv-06606-BMS Document 1 Filed 11/13/13 Page 10 of 24
coordination with federal law enforcement agencies, and others, planned the removal of the Occupy Philly protestors, including the named Plaintiffs, from the Dilworth Plaza. This plan required coordination with various other city departments, including Philadelphia Fire Department, The Department of Licenses and Inspections, as well as the Philadelphia Department of Corrections. 20. In the early morning hours of November 30, 2011, a massive police presence was deployed to the area surrounding Dilworth Plaza. The presence included hundreds of uniformed police officers from various units as well as Philadelphia Fire Department personnel. The police blocked off the adjacent streets surrounding City Hall, which included but was not limited to JFK Boulevard, 15th Street, Market Street and 16th Street ail the way to Chestnut Street, as well as the south entrance to Broad Street. This deployment served as a "blockade" of the public space known as Dilworth Plaza, trapping anyone in and around that location. This blockade was designed to remove by force, or "evict" all of the Occupy Philly protestors who had been exercising their First Amendment rights during the previous seven weeks. This plan included the physical destruction of the encampment, and all personal property contained therein, as well as the arrest ofdemonstrators. 21. At approximately 1:30 a.m. on November 30, 2011, as the Philadelphia police officers moved in to the Dilworth Plaza, they discovered that the encampment had been vacated by the Occupy Philly protestors, many of whom had gathered near the comer of 15th and Market Streets. Once Philadelphia police officers had entered Dilworth Plaza they began tearing down the tents that had been used during the previous weeks as part of the ongoing Occupy protest.
10

Case 2:13-cv-06606-BMS Document 1 Filed 11/13/13 Page 11 of 24
22. Shortly after numerous Philadelphia police officers swept through Dilworth Plaza, two of the Plaintiffs, James Savage and TJ. Ghose, standing with other protestors in the area of 15th and Market Streets, expressing their First Amendment rights, were thwarted in their protest by the police as they were unlawfully arrested by Defendant Officers.
23. The arrests of James Savage and TJ. Ghose, deprived these two Plaintiffs of their First Amendment rights to continue to march in protest. These arrests were conducted without probable cause, or legal justification. As such, these arrests violated their individual rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, as well as 42 U.S.C. §1983. The claims of Plaintiffs, James Savage and T.J. Ghose, are included in the Counts set forth below.
24. Following the police entry onto Dilworth Plaza, a large group of protestors began a march through Center City. Followed by a massive contingent of Philadelphia Police on foot, bicycles and in vehicles, the protest eventually headed north on Broad Street for several blocks to Spring Garden Street in Philadelphia. Upon reaching Spring Garden Street, the protest march continued west on Spring Garden and then south on 15th Street, including all of the named Plaintiffs except James Savage and T.J. Ghose, who had already been arrested.
25. When the protestors, including the named Plaintiffs, reached the intersection of 15th and Hamilton Streets in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, they were met by a large contingent of police officers. Behind the marchers, including the named Plaintiffs, police had stationed vehicles, as well as another large contingent of police officers blocking their movement toward Spring Garden Street. Boxed in by the Philadelphia police officers in the front and
11

Case 2:13-cv-06606-BMS Document 1 Filed 11/13/13 Page 12 of 24
rear, with buildings on either side, the marchers, including the named Plaintiffs, were physically trapped by a police blockade. 26. At some point earlier in the evening, high ranking police officials, including Defendant Commissioner Ramsey, Deputy Commissioner Bethel, Deputy Chief Inspector John Doe, Deputy Commissioner John Doe, Captain William Fisher of the Civil Affairs Unit, made the decision to arrest the protestors, based solely upon the anticipated march or marches that followed the forced removal of the Occupy Philly encampment from the public space known as Dilworth Plaza. The decision to arrest the marchers, including the named Plaintiffs, was not based on the commission of any crime, but rather on their continued peaceful expression of First Amendment rights. 27. Despite the history of peaceful protest marches throughout the Occupy Philly encampment, the Plaintiffs were confronted by the lines of police officers, many with bicycles, placed strategically in front of them. As a result of the Defendants' conduct, the march was halted. 28. On November 30, 2011, at approximately 4:45 in the morning, Deputy Commissioner Bethel ordered the termination of the protest march. Upon information and belief Defendant Deputy Commissioner Bethel received those orders from Defendant Police Commissioner Ramsey. 29. Defendant Captain William Fisher ordered the marchers, including all of the named Plaintiffs, onto the sidewalk on the east side of the street. Defendant Captain Fisher announced that if anyone did not comply with the order to move to the sidewalk they would be arrested. Complying with the Order. all of the named Plaintiffs moved from the street to the sidewalk on the east side of the street. At that point, the Plaintiffs were
12

Case 2:13-cv-06606-BMS Document 1 Filed 11/13/13 Page 13 of 24
surrounded by Defendant police officers, named and yet identified, on bicycles. The Plaintiffs were corralled against the wall of a building and unable to move. The marchers on the west side of the street were not corralled by police, but rather dispersed by force and intimidation. 30. The Defendant Philadelphia police officers upon orders from Defendants, Commissioner Ramsey, Deputy Commissioner Bethel, Captain William Fisher, and other unnamed Defendants began falsely arresting the Plaintiffs. 31. In violation of their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, each of the individual Plaintiffs were handcuffed and taken into custody. All of the Plaintiffs were charged with failure to disperse as a misdemeanor of the second degree, obstructing the highway as a misdemeanor of the third degree, and criminal conspiracy, a misdemeanor of the second degree. Each of the Plaintiffs were falsely arrested, processed and held over twenty-four hours in police custody and released on bail. 32. All of the aforementioned actions taken by each of the Defendants in this matter were taken under color of state law. 33. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' actions, Plaintiffs were deprived of rights, privileges and immunities under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and, in particular, the right to be free from retaliatory conduct against protected speech and assembly, the right to be free from excessive force, the right to be free from unlawful arrest, the right to be free from malicious prosecution, and the right to due process of law. Plaintiffs were similarly deprived of the right not to be the victim of conspiracies of state actors to violate the aforementioned clearly established rights.
13

Case 2:13-cv-06606-BMS Document 1 Filed 11/13/13 Page 14 of 24
34. The actions and/or inactions of the Defendants violated the clearly established federal constitutional rights of Plaintiffs to freedom from retaliation against protected speech and assembly, freedom from the use of excessive, unreasonable, and unjustified force against their person, the right to be free from false arrest and malicious prosecution, and the right to due process of law.
35. As a direct and proximate result of the actions and/or inactions of the Defendants in this matter, Plaintiffs have suffered physical pain, substantial and potentially pennanent physical injury, loss of liberty, anxiety, fear, mental hann, and financial loss.
36. On April 26, 2012, the Plaintiffs were acquitted of all charges.
COUNT I
42 U.S.C. § 1983: Retaliation Against Protected Speecl, and Assembly
Against All Individual Defendants 37. Paragraphs 1 through 36 are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. 38. Plaintiffs were damaged and injured as set forth above under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by
Defendants in that they, as described in detail in preceding paragraphs, violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights while acting under color of law. More specifically, Defendants took retaliatory action against Plaintiffs that was intended to violate their clearly established constitutional rights to protected speech and assembly. The actions taken by Defendants adversely affected Plaintiffs' protected speech and assembly rights. 39. Defendants, by their actions, including, but not limited to, tenninating the protest march, and falsely arresting the Plaintiffs, denied each Plaintiff their individual right to free expression to demonstrate, march, and gather in protest, and to express their individual political views on matters of great public concern.
14

Case 2:13-cv-06606-BMS Document 1 Filed 11/13/13 Page 15 of 24
40. The actions of the Defendants in terminating the protest march, and falsely arresting the Plaintiffs had a chilling effect on the Plaintiffs' free speech and assembly rights under the First Amendment. The Defendants by their conduct in terminating the Plaintiffs protest march, acted with deliberate indifference towards the Plaintiffs' individual First Amendment rights.
41. As a direct and proximate cause of the Defendants' unlawful actions, there was a chilling effect on the Plaintiffs' future free speech and assembly rights protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
42. As a direct and proximate cause of the Defendants' unlawful actions, the individual Plaintiffs suffered emotional distress, pain and suffering, as well as financial loss, which will be established as trial.
COUNT II
42 U.S.c. § 1983: Excessive Force Again~t All Individual Defendants
43. Paragraphs 1 through 42 are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth.
44. Plaintiffs were damaged and injured as set forth above under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by
Defendant Officers in that they, as described in detail in preceding paragraphs, violated Plaintiffs' constitutional rights while acting under color of law. More specifically, Defendant Officers intentionally acted to cause a harmful and/or offensive contact with Plaintiffs' persons and such actions were the actual and proximate cause of Plaintiffs' harm.
15

Case 2:13-cv-06606-BMS Document 1 Filed 11/13/13 Page 16 of 24
COUNT III
Supplemental State Law Claim: Battery Against All Individual Defendants
45. Paragraphs 1 through 44 are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. 46. Plaintiffs were damaged and injured as set forth above by Defendant Officers in that they
intentionally acted to cause a harmful and/or offensive contact with Plaintiffs' persons and such actions were the actual and proximate cause of Plaintiffs' harm.
COUNT IV
42 U.S.C. § 1983: Assault Against All Individual Defendants
47. Paragraphs 1 through 46 are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. 48. Plaintiffs were damaged and injured as set forth above under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by
Defendant Officers in that they, as described in detail in preceding paragraphs, violated Plaintiffs' constitutional rights while acting under color of law. More specifically, Defendant Officers intentionally placed Plaintiffs in reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful and/or offensive bodily contact, and Defendants' actions were the actual and proximate cause of Plaintiffs' harm.
16

Case 2:13-cv-06606-BMS Document 1 Filed 11/13/13 Page 17 of 24
COUNT V Supplemental State Law Claim: Assault
Against All Individual Defendants 49. Paragraphs 1 through 48 are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. 50. Plaintiffs were damaged and injured as set forth above by Defendant Officers in that they
intentionally placed Plaintiffs in reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful and/or offensive bodily contact, and Defendants' actions were the actual and proximate cause of Plaintiffs' harm.
COUNT VI
42 U.S.c. § 1983: Unlawful Arrest Against All Individual Defendants 51. Paragraphs 1 through 50 are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. 52. Plaintiffs were damaged and injured as set forth above under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Defendant Officers in that they, as described in detail in preceding paragraphs, violated Plaintiffs' constitutional rights while acting under color of law. More specifically, Defendant Officers acted with the intent to arrest Plaintiffs unlawfully, without probable cause, and against Plaintiffs' will, and such actions were the actual and proximate cause of Plaintiffs' confinement.
17

Case 2:13-cv-06606-BMS Document 1 Filed 11/13/13 Page 18 of 24
COUNT VII Supplemental State Law Claim: False lmprisonmellt
Against All Individual Defendants 53. Paragraphs 1 through 52 are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. 54. Plaintiffs were damaged and injured as set forth above by Defendant Officers in that they
acted with the intent to confine Plaintiffs unlawfully and against Plaintiffs' will, and such actions were the actual and proximate cause of Plaintiffs' confinement.
COUNT VIII 42 U.S.c. § 1983: Ulljustijied Searc/I Against All Individual Defendants 55. Paragraphs 1 through 54 are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. 56. Plaintiffs were damaged and injured as set forth above under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Defendant Officers in that they, as described in detail in preceding paragraphs, violated Plaintiffs' constitutional rights while acting under color of law. More specifically, Defendant Officers conducted unlawful searches of Plaintiffs' persons and such actions were the actual and proximate cause of Plaintiffs' harm.
18

Case 2:13-cv-06606-BMS Document 1 Filed 11/13/13 Page 19 of 24
COUNT IX
42 U.S.C. § 1983: Malicious Prosecution Against All Individual Defendants
57. Paragraphs 1 through 56 are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. 58. Plaintiffs were damaged and injured as set forth above under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by
Defendant Officers in that they, as described in detail in preceding paragraphs, violated Plaintiffs' constitutional rights while acting under color of law. More specifically, Defendant Officers seized and arrested Plaintiffs, and instituted criminal proceedings against Plaintiffs without probable cause and with malice. These proceedings terminated in favor of the Plaintiffs. Defendants' conduct was the direct and proximate cause of Plaintiffs' harm.
COUNT X
Supplemental State Law Claim: Malicious Prosecution Against All Individual Defendants
59. Paragraphs 1 through 58 are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. 60. Plaintiffs were damaged and injured as set forth above by the Defendant Officers in that
they instituted criminal proceedings against Plaintiffs without probable cause and with malice and where such proceedings were terminated in favor of the Plaintiffs.
19

Case 2:13-cv-06606-BMS Document 1 Filed 11/13/13 Page 20 of 24
COUNT XI 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Conspiracy Against All Individual Defendants
61. Paragraphs 1 through 60 are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. 62. Plaintiffs were damaged and injured as set forth above under 42 U.S.c. § 1983 by
Defendant Officers in that they. as described in detail in preceding paragraphs, violated Plaintiffs' constitutional rights while acting under color of law. More specifically, Defendant Officers, acting in concert and conspiracy, committed acts in violation of the Plaintiffs' Constitutional Rights and against the laws of Pennsylvania. The Defendant Officers acted in conspiracy to violate the Plaintiffs' Constitutional Rights as stated in the above paragraphs, and made statements among themselves and others in order to conceal their unlawful and unconstitutional conduct. Such actions were the direct and proximate cause of Plaintiffs' harm.
COUNT XII Supplemental State Law Claim: Conspiracy
Against All Individual Defendants
63. Paragraphs 1 through 62 are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. 64. Defendant Officers acting in concert and conspiracy, committed acts in violation of the
Plaintiffs' Constitutional Rights and against the laws of Pennsylvania. The Defendant Officers made statements among themselves and others in order to conceal their unlawful and unconstitutional conduct.
20

Case 2:13-cv-06606-BMS Document 1 Filed 11/13/13 Page 21 of 24
COUNT XIII Supplemental State Law: Intentional Infliction ofEmotional Distress
Against All Individual Defendants
65. Paragraphs 1 through 64 are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. 66. Plaintiffs were damaged and injured as set forth above by Defendant Officers in that they
intentionally and/or recklessly caused Plaintiffs severe emotional distress by their extreme and outrageous conduct.
COUNT XIV Supplemental State Law Claim: Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
Against All Individual Defendants
67. Paragraphs 1 through 66 are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. 68. Plaintiffs were damaged and injured as set forth above by Defendant Officers in that they
negligently caused Plaintiffs severe emotional distress by their extreme and outrageous conduct and where Plaintiffs emotional distress resulted in the manifestation of physical symptoms.
COUNT XV 42 U.S.c. § 1983: Monell Against Defendant City of Philadelphia 69. Paragraphs 1 through 68 are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. 70. Prior to November 30, 2011, the City of Philadelphia, including Defendant Police Commissioner Ramsey as the policy maker, developed and maintained policies and/or
21

Case 2:13-cv-06606-BMS Document 1 Filed 11/13/13 Page 22 of 24
customs exhibiting deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of individuals during the course of protests that caused a violation of Plaintiffs' rights. 71. Defendant, City of Philadelphia, as a matter of policy and practice and/or custom has with deliberate indifference, failed to adequately and properly investigate claims that the police had wrongfully arrested individuals during the course of demonstrations, in this case, the Plaintiffs all of whom were engaged in a peaceful protest march. This policy and practice caused the Defendant officers in this case to engage in the unlawful conduct described above. 72. Defendant, City of Philadelphia, as a matter of policy and practice and/or custom has with deliberate indifference, failed to adequately and properly supervise and train police officers, including the Defendants in this case, regarding the constitutional rights of protestors, thereby failing to adequately discourage further constitutional violations on the part of its police officers. The City of Philadelphia did not require appropriate inservice training or retraining of its officers who were known to have engaged in false arrests of protestors protected by the First Amendment. The failure to properly supervise and train the Defendant police officers including the Defendants in this case, caused the Defendant officers to engage in the unlawful conduct described above. 73. Defendant, City of Philadelphia, as a matter of policy and practice and/or custom has with deliberate indifference, failed to adequately and properly discipline and sanction police officers, including the Defendants in this case, regarding the constitutional rights of protestors, thereby failing to adequately discourage further constitutional violations on the part of its police officers. The City of Philadelphia failed to discipline and sanction those officers engaged in conduct which violated the First Amendment rights of
22

Case 2:13-cv-06606-BMS Document 1 Filed 11/13/13 Page 23 of 24 protestors, thereby causing and encouraging police, including the Defendants in this case, to engage in the unlawful conduct described above. 74. As a result of the above-described policies and customs, police officers of the City of Philadelphia, including the Defendant officers, believe that their actions would not be properly monitored by supervisory officers and that their misconduct would not be investigated or sanctioned, but rather would be tolerated. 75. The above-described policies and customs demonstrate a deliberate indifference on the part of the policymakers of the City of Philadelphia, to the constitutional rights of persons within the City of Philadelphia, including those exercising their First Amendment rights, and therefore, caused the violation of Plaintiffs' rights alleged herein. 76. As a direct and proximate cause of the Defendants' unlawful actions, the individual Plaintiffs suffered emotional distress, pain and suffering and financial loss, which will be established as trial.
23

Case 2:13-cv-06606-BMS Document 1 Filed 11/13/13 Page 24 of 24 DAMAGES
77. Paragraphs 1 through 78 are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. 78. As a result of the above actions and claims, the Plaintiff demands judgment against all
defendants in the amount of all damages, including: a. compensatory damages; b. punitive damages; c. interest; d. injunctive relief; e. such other relief as appears reasonable and just; and f. reasonable attorney fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
24

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

NOEL AUGUSTINE et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
CHARLES RAMSEY et al., Defendants.

:

:

CIVIL ACTION

:

:

:

:

No. 13-6606

:

MEMORANDUM

Schiller, J.

May 20, 2014

Twenty-six individuals involved in the Occupy Philadelphia movement sued nine named

Philadelphia police officers and the City of Philadelphia, claiming that Plaintiffs’ arrests during a

protest violated their rights under the First and Fourth Amendments and under state law.

Defendants move to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6). The Court held oral argument on the motion on April 15, 2014. For the

following reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ motion with respect to Plaintiffs’ claims of

excessive force and unreasonable search and denies Defendants’ motion with respect to

Plaintiffs’ other claims.

I. BACKGROUND Occupy Philadelphia, an association of protesters, gathered on or about October 6, 2011
outside City Hall in Philadelphia to protest economic inequality. (Compl. ¶ 18.) Over the course of seven weeks, these protestors demonstrated outside City Hall’s Dilworth Plaza and marched throughout the city. (Id.) Philadelphia police officers, assisted by various federal agencies, shadowed and surveilled the protestors. (Id.)

On November 27, 2011, Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter and Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey issued an order evicting the protestors from Dilworth Plaza. (Id. ¶ 19.) Defendants then planned the removal of the protestors, including Plaintiffs, from Dilworth Plaza. (Id.) During the evening of November 29, 2011, Commissioner Ramsey, Deputy Police Commissioner Kevin Bethel, and Captain William Fisher (“Supervisor Defendants”), Deputy Chief Inspector John Doe, and Deputy Commissioner John Doe decided to arrest the protestors “based solely upon the anticipated march or marches that followed the forced removal of the Occupy Philly encampment from the public space known as Dilworth Plaza.” (Id. ¶ 26.)
On the morning of November 30, 2011, police officers entered Dilworth Plaza, which had been vacated by the protestors. (Id. ¶ 21.) Officers tore down tents in Dilworth Plaza that had previously been occupied by protesters. (Id.) At this point, many of the protestors were gathered near the corner of 15th Street and Market Street. (Id.) Plaintiffs James Savage and T.J. Ghose were unlawfully arrested by Defendant officers while protesting in that area. (Id. ¶ 22.)
A large group of protestors then began to march through Center City, followed by a “massive contingent” of Philadelphia police officers on foot, on bicycles, and in vehicles. (Id. ¶ 24.) When the protestors, including twenty-four of the Plaintiffs, reached the intersection of 15th Street and Hamilton Street, a large group of police officers surrounded them, blocking their movement. (Id. ¶ 25.) Following instructions from Commissioner Ramsey, Deputy Commissioner Bethel ordered that the protest be terminated. (Id. ¶ 28.) Captain Fisher then ordered the protestors, including Plaintiffs, to move from the street to the sidewalk, and he announced that protestors who did not comply with his order would be arrested. (Id. ¶ 29.) Plaintiffs, complying with Captain Fisher’s order, moved from the street to the sidewalk. (Id.) Plaintiffs were then surrounded by Defendant officers on bicycles and “corralled against the wall
2

of a building,” where they were unable to move. (Id.) Upon orders from Commissioner Ramsey, Deputy Commissioner Bethel, and Captain Fisher, Defendant officers then falsely arrested and handcuffed Plaintiffs. (Id. ¶¶ 30, 31.)
Plaintiffs were charged with the following misdemeanors: failure to disperse, obstructing the highway, and criminal conspiracy. (Id. ¶ 31.) They were held for over twenty-four hours in police custody and released on bail. (Id.) Plaintiffs were later acquitted of all charges. (Id. ¶ 36.) As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs suffered physical pain, substantial and potentially permanent physical injury, loss of liberty, anxiety, fear, mental harm, and financial loss. (Id. ¶ 35.)
Plaintiffs now bring fourteen claims against the police officer Defendants. The federal claims are retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, civil conspiracy, and excessive force, unreasonable search, assault, unlawful arrest, and malicious prosecution in violation of the Fourth Amendment. (Id. ¶¶ 37-44, 47-48, 51-52, 55-58, 61-62.) In addition, Plaintiffs bring state law claims, including battery, assault, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, conspiracy, and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Id. ¶¶ 45-46, 49-50, 53-54, 59-60, 63-68.) Plaintiffs seek to hold the City of Philadelphia liable under Monell for the constitutional violations by Defendant officers. (Id. ¶¶ 69-76.) See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees and costs. (Compl. ¶ 78.)
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW In reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a district court must accept
as true all well-pleaded allegations and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-
3

moving party. See Bd. of Trs. of Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen Local 6 of N.J. Welfare Fund v. Wettlin Assocs., 237 F.3d 270, 272 (3d Cir. 2001). A court need not, however, credit “bald assertions” or “legal conclusions” when deciding a motion to dismiss. Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
“Factual allegations [in a complaint] must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must include “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. Although the federal rules impose no probability requirement at the pleading stage, a plaintiff must present “enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the necessary element[s]” of a cause of action. Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 234 (3d Cir. 2008). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Simply reciting the elements will not suffice. Id. (holding that a pleading that offers labels and conclusions without further factual enhancement will not survive motion to dismiss); see also Phillips, 515 F.3d at 231.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has directed district courts to conduct a two-part analysis when faced with a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. First, the legal elements and factual allegations of the claim should be separated, with the well-pleaded facts accepted as true but the legal conclusions disregarded. Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210-11 (3d Cir. 2009). Second, the court must make a commonsense determination of whether the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to show a plausible claim for relief. Id. at 211. If the court
4

can only infer the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint must be dismissed because it has alleged—but has failed to show—that the pleader is entitled to relief.1 Id.
III. DISCUSSION
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ claims fail for the following reasons: (1) the Complaint
describes only collective action by the six non-supervisor Defendants and does not specify each
Defendant’s independent role in the violations; (2) the Complaint “lumps” twenty-four of the
twenty-six Plaintiffs “together generally by the collective reference, ‘Plaintiffs,’” rather than
alleging facts unique to each Plaintiff; (3) the Complaint does not allege personal involvement
in the arrests by the Supervisor Defendants; and (4) the first five pages of the Complaint are
conclusions of law that must be disregarded. (Defs.’ Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss [Defs.’ Mem.] at 9-10.)2
The mere fact that the Complaint fails to identify each Plaintiff’s and each Defendant’s
unique role is not fatal to Plaintiffs’ claims. However, some of Plaintiffs’ claims, by their nature,
require more facts than the Complaint alleges about each Plaintiff’s arrest and interactions with
the police. In particular, Plaintiffs fail to provide sufficient facts to state claims for excessive
force and unreasonable search.
1 Plaintiffs cite Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957), for the proposition that “a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” (Pls.’ Answer to Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss at 8.) The Supreme Court has since said that this language “has earned its retirement” and “is best forgotten as an incomplete, negative gloss on an accepted pleading standard.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 563.
2 Defendants also ask the Court to dismiss the Complaint on the grounds that the twentysix Plaintiffs should not have been joined. (Defs.’ Mem. at 5.) Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, misjoinder of parties is not a ground for dismissing an action. While the Court may, on just terms, drop a party or sever a claim, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 21, the Court does not believe that severance is appropriate now.
5

A. Excessive Force When an “excessive force claim arises in the context of an arrest or investigatory stop of a free citizen, it is most properly characterized as one invoking the protections of the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees citizens the right ‘to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable . . . seizures.’” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 394 (1989). To state an excessive force claim, a plaintiff must show that a seizure occurred and that it was unreasonable. Estate of Smith v. Marasco, 430 F.3d 140, 148 (3d Cir. 2005). Because Plaintiffs’ arrests constituted seizures, the Court must decide whether the force used to effect those arrests was excessive, and thus unreasonable. See Boyden v. Twp. of Upper Darby, Civ. A. No. 13-5434, 2014 WL 1152149, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 24, 2014). Factors relevant to this analysis include the severity of the crime, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. Graham, 490 U.S. at 396. Other relevant factors include the possibility that the suspect is violent or dangerous, the possibility that the suspect may be armed, the duration of the police officers’ action, whether the action takes place in the context of effecting an arrest, whether the suspect is physically injured, and the number of persons with whom the police officers must contend at one time. Sharrar v. Felsing, 128 F.3d 810, 822 (3d Cir. 1997), abrogated on other grounds by Curley v. Klem, 499 F.3d 199 (3d Cir. 2007). The situation here, as described by Plaintiffs, warranted only the use of minimal force by Defendants. The crimes with which Plaintiffs were charged—failure to disperse, obstructing the highway, and criminal conspiracy—were not serious, and nothing in the Complaint suggests that Plaintiffs posed a threat, were resisting arrest, or were armed. However, the Complaint does not allege facts reflecting even the use of minimal force. With respect to the arrests of Plaintiffs
6

Ghose and Savage, the Complaint simply states that “Defendant Officers intentionally acted to cause a harmful and/or offensive contact with Plaintiffs’ person and such actions were the actual and proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ harm.” (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 44.) This conclusory language is not entitled to the assumption of truth. See Morse, 132 F.3d at 906. In addition, there are no facts reflecting that Defendants’ contact with Plaintiffs exceeded the degree of contact necessary to arrest them. See Graham, 490 U.S. at 396 (“[T]he right to make an arrest or investigatory stop necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion or threat thereof to effect it.”). Indeed, the Complaint does not describe the contact at all.
With respect to the remaining twenty-four Plaintiffs, the Complaint also does not offer sufficient facts to state a plausible claim of excessive force. (See Compl. ¶¶ 25, 29, 31.) The only force alleged—threats to arrest Plaintiffs and restrictions on Plaintiffs’ movement—are routine in the course of an arrest. See Graham, 490 U.S. at 396; Christian v. Orr, Civ. A. No. 082397, 2011 WL 710209, at *14 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 1, 2011) (“[O]fficers may use verbal shock and awe tactics, including harsh words and threats, as a legitimate means of deterring resistance.”). Although Plaintiffs allege that they were arrested without probable cause, an unlawful arrest does not mean that excessive force was used. See Snell v. City of York, 564 F.3d 659, 672 (3d Cir. 2009). Therefore, Plaintiffs fail to allege facts supporting a plausible claim that Defendants used excessive force in arresting them.
B. Unreasonable Search The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from “unreasonable searches and seizures” of “their persons, houses, papers, and effects.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. The Complaint alleges that “Defendant Officers conducted unlawful searches of Plaintiffs’ persons.” (Compl. ¶ 56.)
7

However, the Complaint does not state any facts about these searches, including how, why, and when they occurred. Therefore, Plaintiffs fail to state a claim that they were unlawfully searched.
C. Leave to Amend Plaintiffs request leave to file an Amended Complaint if the Court dismisses any counts. The Third Circuit has held that “if a complaint is vulnerable to 12(b)(6) dismissal, a district court must permit a curative amendment, unless an amendment would be inequitable or futile.” Phillips, 515 F.3d at 236. The Court will grant Plaintiffs leave to amend so that they may offer facts to support their claims of excessive force and unreasonable search. IV. CONCLUSION The Court dismisses Plaintiffs’ claims of excessive force and unreasonable search without prejudice and grants Plaintiffs leave to amend the Complaint. An Order consistent with this Memorandum will be docketed separately.
8

 
 Case 2:13-cv-06606-BMS Document 22 Filed 08/14/14 Page 1 of 24

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PAUL J. HETZNECKER, ESQUIRE Pennsylvania Attorney ID No. 49990 1420 Walnut Street, Suite 911 Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 893-9640
LAWRENCE S. KRASNER, ESQUIRE Pennsylvania Attorney ID No. 49667 LLOYD LONG III, ESQUIRE Pennsylvania Attorney ID No. 92934 ELIZABETH A. HOFFMAN, ESQUIRE Pennsylvania Attorney ID No. 315910 Krasner & Long, LLC 1221 Locust Street, Suite 301 Philadelphia, PA 19107
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Noel Augustine; Michael Barankovich; Moshe Bitterman; Will Darwall; Gabrielle Dugan; Meggan Durst; Russell Ebright; Toorjo Ghose; Sean Goins; Alex Grosskurth; Kyle Hempe;

No.13-6606 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
1

Case 2:13-cv-06606-BMS Document 22 Filed 08/14/14 Page 2 of 24
Adam Hill; Emma Johnson; Dominick Kain; Timothy Kyle; Daniel Ludwig; Collin Magness; Shawn McMonigle; Michael Morrison; Benjamin Neate; Raul Reyes; Jason Russell; James Savage; Dustin Slaughter; Walter Smolarek; Gwen Snyder; AND Kevin Stutman
All c/o Krasner & Long, LLC 1221 Locust St., Suite 301 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Plaintiffs
v.
Commissioner Charles Ramsey; Deputy Police Commissioner Kevin Bethel;
2

Case 2:13-cv-06606-BMS Document 22 Filed 08/14/14 Page 3 of 24
Captain William V. Fisher Badge No. 82;
Police Officer Joseph Sposato Badge No. 5368;
Police Officer Darryl Crawford Badge No. 7332;
Police Officer Rhonda C. Smith Badge No. 1373;
Police Officer Darrell Sampson Badge No. 8036;
Police Officer Angel Ortiz Badge No. 9556;
Police Officer Joseph Sisca Badge No. 9547;
Police Officers John Doe 1-25 Badge Nos. Presently Unknown;
Police Officers Jane Doe 1-25 Badge Nos. Presently Unknown;
AND CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
A Municipal Corporation All c/o City of Philadelphia Law Dept.
1515 Arch St., 14th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19107
Defendants
3

Case 2:13-cv-06606-BMS Document 22 Filed 08/14/14 Page 4 of 24
PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT INTRODUCTION
1. The cornerstone of our constitutional democracy is firmly rooted in the right to free speech embodied by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution provides the principal bulwark against the government's power to intrude upon the free expression of ideas, particularly dissenting ideas. Born of the struggle against tyranny over two centuries ago, the First Amendment embodies the heart and soul of our democracy; the right to speak freely, to assemble in protest, and to express shared ideas through a collective public voice. Those voices often express unpopular, dissenting views. Drafted in 1787 and ratified by the states in 1791, the First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." U.S. CONST. amend. I
2. Without this protection, freedom cannot survive. Ensuring that the right to political protest is protected under the First Amendment, courts of the United States have long recognized that free expression and association includes occupying public spaces in order to protest, demonstrate, march, and openly express opinions on political matters of public concern.
3. In September of 2011, inspired by the "Arab Spring" during which thousands rose up against tyranny and oppression in the Middle East, a small group of protestors occupied a park in New York City, New York. The original protestors came to demonstrate against
4

Case 2:13-cv-06606-BMS Document 22 Filed 08/14/14 Page 5 of 24
the emergent corporate state and the demise our democracy. Emblematic of this popular outcry against corporate power, greed, and the vast inequities in wealth and power between the rich and poor in this country, was the recognition that the majority of the people in this country, the "99%", had little or no say over the decisions made by the wealthy that compromise less than "1 %" of the population. Like the spontaneous spark, a movement spread across manifesting in hundreds of Occupy encampments. 4. Here in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the cradle of liberty, Occupy Philadelphia participants gathered to express their individual and collective voices regarding some of the most important political, economic and social issues of our time. As with other Occupy associations throughout this country, Occupy Philadelphia emerged as association of individuals protesting against the control that corporations have over our government, usurping our democracy. Formed spontaneously in early October 2011, the association, known as "Occupy Philly," organized as a protest gathering, frequently referred to as an encampment, on Dilworth Plaza, a public forum, outside of City Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. This gathering (or encampment) served as an ongoing demonstration in a public space, an expression of the cherished freedoms we enjoy under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. In response, the Philadelphia Police Department, through orders from Defendant Commissioner Charles Ramsey, Deputy Commissioner Bethel, and other known and presently unknown police officials, in conjunction with federal authorities, maintained a constant presence through direct and undercover surveillance, as well as infiltration, of the Occupy Philly demonstrators during the course of the seven week protest. During this seven week gathering, there were daily organizational meetings, seminars, and marches, many originating from this public
5

Case 2:13-cv-06606-BMS Document 22 Filed 08/14/14 Page 6 of 24
space. These marches and demonstrations exemplified the long storied tradition of free expression, as they encompassed various matters of great public concern, such as the predatory lending practices by major banks, the fleecing of the Philadelphia School District by some of these same banks, the concentration of corporate power in companies, like Comcast, headquartered here in Philadelphia, as well as the history of police brutality experienced by the citizens of Philadelphia, and many other issues. This complaint seeks compensation for each of the Plaintiffs for the violations of their individual rights as set forth in this complaint.
JURISDICTION 5. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction is founded upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331and1334(1), (3), and (4). Plaintiffs further invoke the supplemental jurisdiction under 28 United States Code§ 1367 (a) to hear and decide claims under state law.
PARTIES 6. Plaintiffs, Noel Augustine, Michael Barankovich, Moshe Bitterman, Will Darwall,
Gabrielle Dugan, Meggan Durst, Russell Ebright, Toorjo ("T.J.") Ghose, Sean Goins, Alex Grosskurth, Kyle Hempe, Adam Hill, Emma Johnson, Dominick Kain, Timothy Kyle, Daniel Ludwig, Collin Magness, Shawn McMonigle, Michael Morrison, Benjamin Neate, Raul Reyes, Jason Russell, James Savage, Dustin Slaughter, Walter Smolarek, Gwen Snyder, and Kevin Stutman are adult citizens and were present in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania at all times relevant to this Complaint.
6

Case 2:13-cv-06606-BMS Document 22 Filed 08/14/14 Page 7 of 24
7. Defendant, Commissioner Charles Ramsey, is and was at all time relevant to this complaint Commissioner of the Philadelphia Police Department and acting under the color of state law. He is being sued both in his individual and official capacities.
8. Defendant, Deputy Commissioner Kevin Bethel, is and was at all time relevant to this complaint a Deputy Commissioner of the Philadelphia Police Department and acting under the color of state law. He is being sued both in his individual and official capacities.
9. Defendant, Captain William Fisher, Badge No. 82, is and was at all time relevant to this complaint Captain of the Philadelphia Police Department and acting under the color of state law. He is being sued both in his individual and official capacities.
10. Defendant, Police Officer Joseph Sposato, Badge No. 5368 is and was at all time relevant to this complaint a member of the Philadelphia Police Department and acting under the color of state law. He is being sued both in his individual and official capacities.
11. Defendant, Police Officer Darryl Crawford, Badge No. 7332 is and was at all time relevant to this complaint a member of the Philadelphia Police Department and acting under the color of state law. He is being sued both in his individual and official capacities.
12. Defendant, Police Officer Darrell Sampson, Badge No. 8036 is and was at all time relevant to this complaint a member of the Philadelphia Police Department and acting under the color of state law. He is being sued both in his individual and official capacities.
7

Case 2:13-cv-06606-BMS Document 22 Filed 08/14/14 Page 8 of 24
13. Defendant, Police Officer Angel Ortiz, Badge No. 9556 is and was at all time relevant to this complaint a member of the Philadelphia Police Department and acting under the color of state law. He is being sued both in his individual and official capacities.
14. Defendant, Police Officer Joseph Sisca, Badge No. 9547 is and was at all time relevant to this complaint a member of the Philadelphia Police Department and acting under the color of state law. He is being sued both in his individual and official capacities.
15. Defendant, Police Officer Rhonda Smith, Badge No. 1373 is and was at all time relevant to this complaint a member of the Philadelphia Police Department and acting under the color of state law. She is being sued both in her individual and official capacities.
16. Defendant Police Officers John Doe 1-25 and Jane Doe 1-25 are and were at all time relevant to this complaint a member of the Philadelphia Police Department and acting under the color of state law. The identities of these officers are presently unknown, but are expected to be determined with reasonably certainty during the course of discovery. They are being sued in their individual and official capacities.
17. Defendant, City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania is a municipal corporation and the public employer of the individually named Defendants. He is being sued both in his individual and official capacities.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
18. Occupy Philadelphia is an association of protestors who gathered together on or about October 6, 2011 outside of City Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to demonstrate against the vast inequity in wealth in this country. This gathering in a public space was a
8

Case 2:13-cv-06606-BMS Document 22 Filed 08/14/14 Page 9 of 24
political statement addressing issues of great public concern and an exercise of First Amendment rights. In the cradle of liberty, the Occupy Philly members gathered in protest to express their individual and collective voices regarding some of the most importance issues of public concern facing this nation. The Philadelphia Police, in conjunction with federal authorities, maintained constant surveillance over the protestors during the course of the seven weeks the Occupy Philly protestors demonstrated outside of City Hall's Dilworth Plaza, a public space in the heart of the Center City District in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. During the seven-week Occupy Philly demonstration, protestors participated in numerous peaceful marches and demonstrations throughout the City of Philadelphia. These peaceful marches and demonstrations offered protests on various matters of great public concern. While individuals engaged in these peaceful marches throughout the City of Philadelphia, they would travel through the streets exercising their First Amendment rights, always shadowed by a massive contingent of Philadelphia police officers, including, but not limited to, officers from the Philadelphia Police Civil Affairs Unit, bicycle patrols, intelligence unit, and other uniformed as well as officers acting in an undercover capacity. The contingent of police was assisted by various federal agencies including the FBI, Department of Homeland Security and personnel from the Federal Terrorism Task Force. Based on recent revelations, upon information and belief, the Plaintiffs assert that this assistance may have included illegal surveillance by federal authorities. 19. On November 27, 2011, the Mayor of Philadelphia, Michael Nutter, along with Defendant Police Commissioner Ramsey issued an order evicting the Occupy Philly protestors from Dilworth Plaza, a public space, adjacent to City Hall in the Center City
9

Case 2:13-cv-06606-BMS Document 22 Filed 08/14/14 Page 10 of 24
District of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In conjunction with that order, the named and unnamed Defendants, such as Commissioner Ramsey, Deputy Commissioner Bethel, Captain Fisher, and other ranking members of the Philadelphia Police Department, in coordination with federal law enforcement agencies, and others, planned the removal of the Occupy Philly protestors, including the named Plaintiffs, from the Dilworth Plaza. This plan required coordination with various other city departments, including Philadelphia Fire Department, The Department of Licenses and Inspections, as well as the Philadelphia Department of Corrections. 20. In the early morning hours of November 30, 2011, a massive police presence was deployed to the area surrounding Dilworth Plaza. The presence included hundreds of uniformed police officers from various units as well as Philadelphia Fire Department personnel. The police blocked off the adjacent streets surrounding City Hall, which included but was not limited to JFK Boulevard, 15th Street, Market Street and 16th Street all the way to Chestnut Street, as well as the south entrance to Broad Street. This deployment served as a "blockade" of the public space known as Dilworth Plaza, trapping anyone in and around that location. This blockade was designed to remove by force, or "evict" all of the Occupy Philly protestors who had been exercising their First Amendment rights during the previous seven weeks. This plan included the physical destruction of the encampment, and all personal property contained therein, as well as the arrest of demonstrators. 21. At approximately 1:30 a.m. on November 30, 2011, as the Philadelphia police officers moved in to the Dilworth Plaza, they discovered that the encampment had been vacated by the Occupy Philly protestors, many of whom had gathered near the comer of 15th and
10

Case 2:13-cv-06606-BMS Document 22 Filed 08/14/14 Page 11 of 24
Market Streets. Once Philadelphia police officers had entered Dilworth Plaza they began tearing down the tents that had been used during the previous weeks as part of the ongoing Occupy protest. 22. Shortly after numerous Philadelphia police officers swept through Dilworth Plaza, two of the Plaintiffs, James Savage and T.J. Ghose, standing with other protestors in the area of 15th and Market Streets, expressing their First Amendment rights, were thwarted in their protest by the police as they were unlawfully arrested by Defendant Officers. 23. The arrests of James Savage and T.J. Ghose, deprived these two Plaintiffs of their First Amendment rights to continue to march in protest. These arrests were conducted without probable cause, or legal justification. As such, these arrests violated their individual rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, as well as 42 U.S.C. §1983. The claims of Plaintiffs, James Savage and T.J. Ghose, are included in the Counts set forth below. 24. Following the police entry onto Dilworth Plaza, a large group of protestors began a march through Center City. Followed by a massive contingent of Philadelphia Police on foot, bicycles and in vehicles, the protest eventually headed north on Broad Street for several blocks to Spring Garden Street in Philadelphia. Upon reaching Spring Garden Street, the protest march continued west on Spring Garden and then south on 15th Street, including all of the named Plaintiffs except James Savage and T.J. Ghose, who had already been arrested. 25. When the protestors, including the named Plaintiffs, reached the intersection of 15th and Hamilton Streets in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, they were met by a large contingent of police officers. Behind the marchers, including the named Plaintiffs, police had stationed
11

Case 2:13-cv-06606-BMS Document 22 Filed 08/14/14 Page 12 of 24
vehicles, as well as another large contingent of police officers blocking their movement toward Spring Garden Street. Boxed in by the Philadelphia police officers in the front and rear, with buildings on either side, the marchers, including the named Plaintiffs, were physically trapped by a police blockade. 26. At some point earlier in the evening, high ranking police officials, including Defendant Commissioner Ramsey, Deputy Commissioner Bethel, Deputy Chief Inspector John Doe, Deputy Commissioner John Doe, Captain William Fisher of the Civil Affairs Unit, made the decision to arrest the protestors, based solely upon the anticipated march or marches that followed the forced removal of the Occupy Philly encampment from the public space known as Dilworth Plaza. The decision to arrest the marchers, including the named Plaintiffs, was not based on the commission of any crime, but rather on their continued peaceful expression of First Amendment rights. 27. Despite the history of peaceful protest marches throughout the Occupy Philly encampment, the Plaintiffs were confronted by the lines of police officers, many with bicycles, placed strategically in front of them. As a result of the Defendants' conduct, the march was halted. 28. On November 30, 2011, at approximately 4:45 in the morning, Deputy Commissioner Bethel ordered the termination of the protest march. Upon information and belief Defendant Deputy Commissioner Bethel received those orders from Defendant Police Commissioner Ramsey. 29. Defendant Captain William Fisher ordered the marchers, including all of the named Plaintiffs, onto the sidewalk on the east side of the street. Defendant Captain Fisher announced that if anyone did not comply with the order to move to the sidewalk they
12

Case 2:13-cv-06606-BMS Document 22 Filed 08/14/14 Page 13 of 24
would be arrested. Complying with the Order, all of the named Plaintiffs moved from the street to the sidewalk on the east side of the street. At that point, the Plaintiffs were surrounded by Defendant police officers, named and yet identified, on bicycles. The Plaintiffs were corralled against the wall of a building and unable to move. The marchers on the west side of the street were not corralled by police, but rather dispersed by force and intimidation. 30. The Defendant Philadelphia police officers upon orders from Defendants, Commissioner Ramsey, Deputy Commissioner Bethel, Captain William Fisher, and other unnamed Defendants began falsely arresting the Plaintiffs. 31. In violation of their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, each of the individual Plaintiffs were handcuffed and taken into custody. All of the Plaintiffs were charged with failure to disperse as a misdemeanor of the second degree, obstructing the highway as a misdemeanor of the third degree, and criminal conspiracy, a misdemeanor of the second degree. Each of the Plaintiffs were falsely arrested, processed and held over twenty-four hours in police custody and released on bail. 32. All of the aforementioned actions taken by each of the Defendants in this matter were taken under color of state law. 33. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' actions, Plaintiffs were deprived of rights, privileges and immunities under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and, in particular, the right to be free from retaliatory conduct against protected speech and assembly, the right to be free from excessive force, the right to be free from unlawful arrest, the right to be free from malicious prosecution, and the right to due process of law. Plaintiffs were similarly deprived of the right not to
13

Case 2:13-cv-06606-BMS Document 22 Filed 08/14/14 Page 14 of 24
be the victim of conspiracies of state actors to violate the aforementioned clearly established rights. 34. The actions and/or inactions of the Defendants violated the clearly established federal constitutional rights of Plaintiffs to freedom from retaliation against protected speech and assembly, freedom from the use of excessive, unreasonable, and unjustified force against their person, the right to be free from false arrest and malicious prosecution, and the right to due process of law. 35. As a direct and proximate result of the actions and/or inactions of the Defendants in this matter, Plaintiffs have suffered physical pain, substantial and potentially permanent physical injury, loss ofliberty, anxiety, fear, mental harm, and financial loss. 36. On April 26, 2012, the Plaintiffs were acquitted of all charges.
COUNT I 42U.S.C.§1983: Retaliation Against Protected Speech and Assembly
Against All Individual Defendants 37. All prior paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. 38. Plaintiffs were damaged and injured as set forth above under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by
Defendants in that they, as described in detail in preceding paragraphs, violated Plaintiffs constitutional rights while acting under color of law. More specifically, Defendants took retaliatory action against Plaintiffs that was intended to violate their clearly established constitutional rights to protected speech and assembly. The actions taken by Defendants adversely affected Plaintiffs' protected speech and assembly rights. 39. Defendants, by their actions, including, but not limited to, terminating the protest march, and falsely arresting the Plaintiffs, denied each Plaintiff their individual right to free
14

Case 2:13-cv-06606-BMS Document 22 Filed 08/14/14 Page 15 of 24
expression to demonstrate, march, and gather in protest, and to express their individual political views on matters of great public concern. 40. The actions of the Defendants in terminating the protest march, and falsely arresting the Plaintiffs had a chilling effect on the Plaintiffs' free speech and assembly rights under the First Amendment. The Defendants by their conduct in terminating the Plaintiffs protest march, acted with deliberate indifference towards the Plaintiffs' individual First Amendment rights. 41. As a direct and proximate cause of the Defendants' unlawful actions, there was a chilling effect on the Plaintiffs' future free speech and assembly rights protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. 42. As a direct and proximate cause of the Defendants' unlawful actions, the individual Plaintiffs suffered emotional distress, pain and suffering, as well as financial loss, which will be established as trial.
COUNT II Supplemental State Law Claim: Battery
Against All Individual Defendants
43. All prior paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. 44. Plaintiffs were damaged and injured as set forth above by Defendant Officers in that they
intentionally acted to cause a harmful and/or offensive contact with Plaintiffs' persons and such actions were the actual and proximate cause of Plaintiffs' harm.
15

Case 2:13-cv-06606-BMS Document 22 Filed 08/14/14 Page 16 of 24
COUNT III
42U.S.C.§1983: Assault Against All Individual Defendants 45. All prior paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. 46. Plaintiffs were damaged and injured as set forth above under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Defendant Officers in that they, as described in detail in preceding paragraphs, violated Plaintiffs' constitutional rights while acting under color of law. More specifically, Defendant Officers intentionally placed Plaintiffs in reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful and/or offensive bodily contact, and Defendants' actions were the actual and proximate cause of Plaintiffs' harm.
COUNT IV
Supplemental State Law Claim: Assault Against All Individual Defendants
47. All prior paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. 48. Plaintiffs were damaged and injured as set forth above by Defendant Officers in that they
intentionally placed Plaintiffs in reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful and/or offensive bodily contact, and Defendants' actions were the actual and proximate cause of Plaintiffs' harm.
16

Case 2:13-cv-06606-BMS Document 22 Filed 08/14/14 Page 17 of 24
COUNTV 42U.S.C.§1983: Unlawful Arrest Against All Individual Defendants 49. All prior paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. 50. Plaintiffs were damaged and injured as set forth above under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Defendant Officers in that they, as described in detail in preceding paragraphs, violated Plaintiffs' constitutional rights while acting under color of law. More specifically, Defendant Officers acted with the intent to arrest Plaintiffs unlawfully, without probable cause, and against Plaintiffs' will, and such actions were the actual and proximate cause of Plaintiffs' confinement.
COUNT VI Supplemental State Law Claim: False Imprisonment
Against All Individual Defendants 51. All prior paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. 52. Plaintiffs were damaged and injured as set forth above by Defendant Officers in that they
acted with the intent to confine Plaintiffs unlawfully and against Plaintiffs' will, and such actions were the actual and proximate cause of Plaintiffs' confinement.
17

Case 2:13-cv-06606-BMS Document 22 Filed 08/14/14 Page 18 of 24
COUNT VII 42U.S.C.§1983: Malicious Prosecution
Against All Individual Defendants 53. All prior paragraphs are incorporated herein by r~ference as though set forth in full. 54. Plaintiffs were damaged and injured as set forth above under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by
Defendant Officers in that they, as described in detail in preceding paragraphs, violated Plaintiffs' constitutional rights while acting under color of law. More specifically, Defendant Officers seized and arrested Plaintiffs, and instituted criminal proceedings against Plaintiffs without probable cause and with malice. These proceedings terminated in favor of the Plaintiffs. Defendants' conduct was the direct and proximate cause of Plaintiffs' harm.
COUNT VIII Supplemental State Law Claim: Malicious Prosecution
Against All Individual Defendants 55. All prior paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. 56. Plaintiffs were damaged and injured as set forth above by the Defendant Officers in that
they instituted criminal proceedings against Plaintiffs without probable cause and with malice and where such proceedings were terminated in favor of the Plaintiffs.
18

Case 2:13-cv-06606-BMS Document 22 Filed 08/14/14 Page 19 of 24
COUNT IX 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Conspiracy Against All Individual Defendants
57. All prior paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. 58. Plaintiffs were damaged and injured as set forth above under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by
Defendant Officers in that they, as described in detail in preceding paragraphs, violated Plaintiffs' constitutional rights while acting under color of law. More specifically, Defendant Officers, acting in concert and conspiracy, committed acts in violation of the Plaintiffs' Constitutional Rights and against the laws of Pennsylvania. The Defendant Officers acted in conspiracy to violate the Plaintiffs' Constitutional Rights as stated in the above paragraphs, and made statements among themselves and others in order to conceal their unlawful and unconstitutional conduct. Such actions were the direct and proximate cause of Plaintiffs' harm.
COUNTX Supplemental State Law Claim: Conspiracy
Against All Individual Defendants
59. All prior paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. 60. Defendant Officers acting in concert and conspiracy, committed acts in violation of the
Plaintiffs' Constitutional Rights and against the laws of Pennsylvania. The Defendant Officers made statements among themselves and others in order to conceal their unlawful and unconstitutional conduct.
19

Case 2:13-cv-06606-BMS Document 22 Filed 08/14/14 Page 20 of 24
COUNT XI Supplemental State Law: Intentional Infliction ofEmotional Distress
Against All Individual Defendants
61. All prior paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. 62. Plaintiffs were damaged and injured as set forth above by Defendant Officers in that they
intentionally and/or recklessly caused Plaintiffs severe emotional distress by their extreme and outrageous conduct.
COUNT XII Supplemental State Law Claim: Negligent Infliction ofEmotional Distress
Against All Individual Defendants
63. All prior paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. 64. Plaintiffs were damaged and injured as set forth above by Defendant Officers in that they
negligently caused Plaintiffs severe emotional distress by their extreme and outrageous conduct and where Plaintiffs emotional distress resulted in the manifestation of physical symptoms.
COUNT XIII 42U.S.C§1983: Monell Against Defendant City of Philadelphia 65. All prior paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. 66. Prior to November 30, 2011, the City of Philadelphia, including Defendant Police Commissioner Ramsey as the policy maker, developed and maintained policies and/or
20

Case 2:13-cv-06606-BMS Document 22 Filed 08/14/14 Page 21 of 24
customs exhibiting deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of individuals during the course of protests that caused a violation of Plaintiffs' rights. 67. Defendant, City of Philadelphia, as a matter of policy and practice and/or custom has with deliberate indifference, failed to adequately and properly investigate claims that the police had wrongfully arrested individuals during the course of demonstrations, in this case, the Plaintiffs all of whom were engaged in a peaceful protest march. This policy and practice caused the Defendant officers in this case to engage in the unlawful conduct described above. 68. Defendant, City of Philadelphia, as a matter of policy and practice and/or custom has with deliberate indifference, failed to adequately and properly supervise and train police officers, including the Defendants in this case, regarding the constitutional rights of protestors, thereby failing to adequately discourage further constitutional violations on the part of its police officers. The City of Philadelphia did not require appropriate inservice training or retraining of its officers who were known to have engaged in false arrests of protestors protected by the First Amendment. The failure to properly supervise and train the Defendant police officers including the Defendants in this case, caused the Defendant officers to engage in the unlawful conduct described above. 69. Defendant, City of Philadelphia, as a matter of policy and practice and/or custom has with deliberate indifference, failed to adequately and properly discipline and sanction police officers, including the Defendants in this case, regarding the constitutional rights of protestors, thereby failing to adequately discourage further constitutional violations on the part of its police officers. The City of Philadelphia failed to discipline and sanction those officers engaged in conduct which violated the First Amendment rights of
21

Case 2:13-cv-06606-BMS Document 22 Filed 08/14/14 Page 22 of 24
protestors, thereby causing and encouraging police, including the Defendants in this case, to engage in the unlawful conduct described above. 70. As a result of the above-described policies and customs, police officers of the City of Philadelphia, including the Defendant officers, believe that their actions would not be properly monitored by supervisory officers and that their misconduct would not be investigated or sanctioned, but rather would be tolerated. 71. The above-described policies and customs demonstrate a deliberate indifference on the part of the policymakers of the City of Philadelphia, to the constitutional rights of persons within the City of Philadelphia, including those exercising their First Amendment rights, and therefore, caused the violation of Plaintiffs' rights alleged herein. 72. As a direct and proximate cause of the Defendants' unlawful actions, the individual Plaintiffs suffered emotional distress, pain and suffering and financial loss, which will be established as trial.
22

Case 2:13-cv-06606-BMS Document 22 Filed 08/14/14 Page 23 of 24
DAMAGES
\
73. All prior paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. 74. As a result of the above actions and claims, the Plaintiff demands judgment against all
defendants in the amount of all damages, including: a. compensatory damages; b. punitive damages; c. interest; d. injunctive relief; e. such other relief as appears reasonable and just; and f. reasonable attorney fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
The Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial.
Respectfully submitted,
l Ill Lloyd L ng !~squire
Lawrence S. Krasner, Esquire Paul J. Hetznecker, Esquire Elizabeth A. Hoffman, Esquire Attorneys for Plaintiffs DATED: August 13, 2014
23

Case 2:13-cv-06606-BMS Document 22 Filed 08/14/14 Page 24 of 24 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on August 13, 2014 the foregoing Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint was filed via the Court's CM/ECF system, is available for viewing and downloading, and, as such, was served upon the below:
Craig M. Straw, Esq. Amanda C. Shoffel, Esq. City of Philadelphia Law Department 1515 Arch Street, 14th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102
/ti~' __{_i_ -- ---
Lloyd Lo g III, q.
24

 
 Case: 2:13-cv-6606 As of: 11/06/2017 12:41 AM EST 1 of 19
CLOSED,LEAD,STANDARD
United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:13−cv−06606−BMS

AUGUSTINE et al v. RAMSEY et al Assigned to: HONORABLE BERLE M. SCHILLER related Cases: 2:13−cv−06916−BMS
2:15−cv−05047−BMS
2:16−cv−00945−BMS Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 11/13/2013 Date Terminated: 07/25/2016 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

NOEL AUGUSTINE

represented by LAWRENCE S. KRASNER KRASNER & LONG LLC 1221 LOCUST ST PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107 215−731−9500 Fax: 215−731−9908 Email: krasner@krasnerlong.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LLOYD LONG , III KRASNER & LONG LLC 239 S. CAMAC ST PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107 215−731−9500 Fax: 215−731−9908 Email: long@krasnerhugheslong.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PAUL J. HETZNECKER 1420 WALNUT ST STE 911 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102 215−893−9640 Email: phetznecker@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ELIZABETH A. HOFFMAN KRASNER HUGHES & LONG 1221 LOCUST ST PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107 215−731−9500 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff MICHAEL BARANKOVICH

represented by LAWRENCE S. KRASNER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LLOYD LONG , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PAUL J. HETZNECKER (See above for address)

Case: 2:13-cv-6606 As of: 11/06/2017 12:41 AM EST 2 of 19

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ELIZABETH A. HOFFMAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff MOSHE BITTERMAN

represented by LAWRENCE S. KRASNER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LLOYD LONG , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PAUL J. HETZNECKER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ELIZABETH A. HOFFMAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff WILL DARWALL

represented by LAWRENCE S. KRASNER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LLOYD LONG , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PAUL J. HETZNECKER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ELIZABETH A. HOFFMAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff GABRIELLE DUGAN

represented by LAWRENCE S. KRASNER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LLOYD LONG , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PAUL J. HETZNECKER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:13-cv-6606 As of: 11/06/2017 12:41 AM EST 3 of 19

ELIZABETH A. HOFFMAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff MEGGAN DURST

represented by LAWRENCE S. KRASNER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LLOYD LONG , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PAUL J. HETZNECKER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ELIZABETH A. HOFFMAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff RUSSELL EBRIGHT

represented by LAWRENCE S. KRASNER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LLOYD LONG , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PAUL J. HETZNECKER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ELIZABETH A. HOFFMAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff TOORJO GHOSE

represented by LAWRENCE S. KRASNER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LLOYD LONG , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PAUL J. HETZNECKER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ELIZABETH A. HOFFMAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:13-cv-6606 As of: 11/06/2017 12:41 AM EST 4 of 19

Plaintiff SEAN GOINS
Plaintiff ALEX GROSSKURTH
Plaintiff KYLE HEMPE
Plaintiff ADAM HILL

represented by LAWRENCE S. KRASNER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LLOYD LONG , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
PAUL J. HETZNECKER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ELIZABETH A. HOFFMAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by LAWRENCE S. KRASNER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LLOYD LONG , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
PAUL J. HETZNECKER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ELIZABETH A. HOFFMAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by LAWRENCE S. KRASNER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LLOYD LONG , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
PAUL J. HETZNECKER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ELIZABETH A. HOFFMAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by

Case: 2:13-cv-6606 As of: 11/06/2017 12:41 AM EST 5 of 19

LAWRENCE S. KRASNER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LLOYD LONG , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PAUL J. HETZNECKER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ELIZABETH A. HOFFMAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff EMMA JOHNSON

represented by LAWRENCE S. KRASNER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LLOYD LONG , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PAUL J. HETZNECKER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ELIZABETH A. HOFFMAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff DOMINICK KAIN

represented by LAWRENCE S. KRASNER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LLOYD LONG , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PAUL J. HETZNECKER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ELIZABETH A. HOFFMAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff TIMOTHY KYLE

represented by LAWRENCE S. KRASNER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:13-cv-6606 As of: 11/06/2017 12:41 AM EST 6 of 19

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LLOYD LONG , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PAUL J. HETZNECKER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ELIZABETH A. HOFFMAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff DANIEL LUDWIG

represented by LAWRENCE S. KRASNER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LLOYD LONG , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PAUL J. HETZNECKER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ELIZABETH A. HOFFMAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff COLLIN MAGNESS

represented by LAWRENCE S. KRASNER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LLOYD LONG , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PAUL J. HETZNECKER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ELIZABETH A. HOFFMAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff SHAWN MCMONIGLE

represented by LAWRENCE S. KRASNER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LLOYD LONG , III

Case: 2:13-cv-6606 As of: 11/06/2017 12:41 AM EST 7 of 19

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PAUL J. HETZNECKER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ELIZABETH A. HOFFMAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff MICHAEL MORRISON

represented by LAWRENCE S. KRASNER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LLOYD LONG , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PAUL J. HETZNECKER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ELIZABETH A. HOFFMAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff BENJAMIN NEATE

represented by LAWRENCE S. KRASNER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LLOYD LONG , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PAUL J. HETZNECKER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ELIZABETH A. HOFFMAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff JASON RUSSELL

represented by LAWRENCE S. KRASNER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LLOYD LONG , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:13-cv-6606 As of: 11/06/2017 12:41 AM EST 8 of 19

Plaintiff JAMES SAVAGE
Plaintiff DUSTIN SLAUGHTER
Plaintiff WALTER SMOLAREK

PAUL J. HETZNECKER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ELIZABETH A. HOFFMAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by LAWRENCE S. KRASNER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LLOYD LONG , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
PAUL J. HETZNECKER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ELIZABETH A. HOFFMAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by LAWRENCE S. KRASNER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LLOYD LONG , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
PAUL J. HETZNECKER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ELIZABETH A. HOFFMAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by LAWRENCE S. KRASNER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LLOYD LONG , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
PAUL J. HETZNECKER (See above for address)

Case: 2:13-cv-6606 As of: 11/06/2017 12:41 AM EST 9 of 19

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ELIZABETH A. HOFFMAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff GWEN SNYDER

represented by LAWRENCE S. KRASNER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LLOYD LONG , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PAUL J. HETZNECKER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ELIZABETH A. HOFFMAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff KEVIN STUTMAN

represented by LAWRENCE S. KRASNER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LLOYD LONG , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PAUL J. HETZNECKER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ELIZABETH A. HOFFMAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff RAUL REYES

represented by ELIZABETH A. HOFFMAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LAWRENCE S. KRASNER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LLOYD LONG , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:13-cv-6606 As of: 11/06/2017 12:41 AM EST 10 of 19
PAUL J. HETZNECKER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant COMMISSIONER CHARLES RAMSEY
Defendant DEPUTY POLICE COMMIS KEVIN BETHEL

represented by MATTHEW K. HUBBARD CITY OF PHILA. LAW DEPT OFFICE OF THE CITY SOLICITOR, CIVIL RIGHTS UNIT 1515 ARCH STREET., 14TH FLOOR PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 215−683−5391 Email: matthew.hubbard@phila.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NIYA L. BLACKWELL CITY OF PHILADELPHIA LAW DEPT 1515 ARCH ST. PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107 215−683−5445 TERMINATED: 08/20/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY
AMANDA C SHOFFEL CITY OF PHILADELPHIA LAW DEPARTMENT CIVIL RIGHTS UNIT 1515 ARCH STREET 14TH FLOOR PHILDELPHIA, PA 19102 215−683−5443 Fax: 215−638−5397 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CRAIG M. STRAW CITY OF PHILADELPHIA LAW DEPARTMENT 1515 ARCH STREET 14TH FLOOR PHILA, PA 19102 215−683−5442 Email: craig.straw@phila.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
REBECCA PROSPER CITY OF PHILADELPHIA 1515 ARCH STREET 14TH FLOOR PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102 215−683−5443 Email: rebecca.prosper@phila.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW K. HUBBARD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NIYA L. BLACKWELL

Case: 2:13-cv-6606 As of: 11/06/2017 12:41 AM EST 11 of 19

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/20/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY

AMANDA C SHOFFEL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

CRAIG M. STRAW (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

REBECCA PROSPER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
CAPTAIN WILLIAM V. FISHER BADGE NO. 82

represented by MATTHEW K. HUBBARD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

NIYA L. BLACKWELL (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/20/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY

AMANDA C SHOFFEL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

CRAIG M. STRAW (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

REBECCA PROSPER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
POLICE OFFICER JOSEPH SPOSATO BADGE NO. 5368

represented by MATTHEW K. HUBBARD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

NIYA L. BLACKWELL (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/20/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY

AMANDA C SHOFFEL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

CRAIG M. STRAW (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

REBECCA PROSPER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant

Case: 2:13-cv-6606 As of: 11/06/2017 12:41 AM EST 12 of 19

POLICE OFFICER, DARRYL CRAWFORD BADGE NO. 7332

represented by MATTHEW K. HUBBARD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

NIYA L. BLACKWELL (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/20/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY

AMANDA C SHOFFEL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

CRAIG M. STRAW (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

REBECCA PROSPER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
POLICE OFFICER RHONDA C. SMITH BADGE NO. 1373

represented by MATTHEW K. HUBBARD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

NIYA L. BLACKWELL (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/20/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY

AMANDA C SHOFFEL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

CRAIG M. STRAW (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

REBECCA PROSPER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
POLICE OFFICER DARRELL SAMPSON BADGE NO. 8036

represented by MATTHEW K. HUBBARD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

NIYA L. BLACKWELL (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/20/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY

AMANDA C SHOFFEL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

CRAIG M. STRAW (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:13-cv-6606 As of: 11/06/2017 12:41 AM EST 13 of 19

REBECCA PROSPER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
POLICE OFFICER ANGEL ORTIZ BADGE NO. 9556

represented by MATTHEW K. HUBBARD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

NIYA L. BLACKWELL (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/20/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY

AMANDA C SHOFFEL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

CRAIG M. STRAW (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

REBECCA PROSPER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
POLICE OFFICER JOSEPH SISCA BADGE NO. 9547

represented by MATTHEW K. HUBBARD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

NIYA L. BLACKWELL (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/20/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY

AMANDA C SHOFFEL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

CRAIG M. STRAW (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

REBECCA PROSPER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

represented by MATTHEW K. HUBBARD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

NIYA L. BLACKWELL (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/20/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY

AMANDA C SHOFFEL (See above for address)

Case: 2:13-cv-6606 As of: 11/06/2017 12:41 AM EST 14 of 19
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CRAIG M. STRAW (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
REBECCA PROSPER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant POLICE OFFICERS JOHN DOE 1−25
Defendant POLICE OFFICERS JANE DOE 1−25

Date Filed 11/13/2013
11/13/2013 11/13/2013 12/02/2013
01/15/2014

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against KEVIN BETHEL, CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, DARRYL CRAWFORD, WILLIAM V. FISHER, ANGEL ORTIZ, CHARLES RAMSEY, DARRELL SAMPSON, JOSEPH SISCA, RHONDA C. SMITH, JOSEPH SPOSATO, POLICE OFFICERS JOHN DOE 1−25, POLICE OFFICERS JANE DOE 1−25 ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 091502.), filed by SEAN GOINS, MEGGAN DURST, GABRIELLE DUGAN, NOEL AUGUSTINE, RUSSELL EBRIGHT, TIMOTHY KYLE, DANIEL LUDWIG, SHAWN MCMONIGLE, EMMA JOHNSON, DUSTIN SLAUGHTER, DOMINICK KAIN, BENJAMIN NEATE, WALTER SMOLAREK, WILL DARWALL, TOORJO GHOSE, COLLIN MAGNESS, JAMES SAVAGE, GWEN SNYDER, MOSHE BITTERMAN, KYLE HEMPE, JASON RUSSELL, ADAM HILL, ALEX GROSSKURTH, MICHAEL MORRISON, KEVIN STUTMAN, MICHAEL BARANKOVICH. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Designation Form, # 3 Case Management Track Form)(jwl, ) Modified on 11/14/2013 (jwl, ). (Entered: 11/14/2013)
Summons Issued as to KEVIN BETHEL, CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, DARRYL CRAWFORD, WILLIAM V. FISHER, ANGEL ORTIZ, CHARLES RAMSEY, DARRELL SAMPSON, JOSEPH SISCA, RHONDA C. SMITH, JOSEPH SPOSATO. Ten Forwarded To: Counsel on 11/14/13 (jwl, ) (Entered: 11/14/2013)
DEMAND for Trial by Jury by WILL DARWALL, NOEL AUGUSTINE, MICHAEL BARANKOVICH, MOSHE BITTERMAN, GABRIELLE DUGAN, MEGGAN DURST, RUSSELL EBRIGHT, TOORJO GHOSE, SEAN GOINS, ALEX GROSSKURTH, KYLE HEMPE, ADAM HILL, EMMA JOHNSON, DOMINICK KAIN, TIMOTHY KYLE, DANIEL LUDWIG, COLLIN MAGNESS, SHAWN MCMONIGLE, MICHAEL MORRISON, BENJAMIN NEATE, JASON RUSSELL, JAMES SAVAGE, DUSTIN SLAUGHTER, WALTER SMOLAREK, GWEN SNYDER, KEVIN STUTMAN. (jwl, ) (Entered: 11/14/2013)
2 NOTICE of Appearance by ELIZABETH A. HOFFMAN on behalf of WILL DARWALL, NOEL AUGUSTINE, MICHAEL BARANKOVICH, MOSHE BITTERMAN, GABRIELLE DUGAN, MEGGAN DURST, RUSSELL EBRIGHT, TOORJO GHOSE, SEAN GOINS, ALEX GROSSKURTH, KYLE HEMPE, ADAM HILL, EMMA JOHNSON, DOMINICK KAIN, TIMOTHY KYLE, DANIEL LUDWIG, COLLIN MAGNESS, SHAWN MCMONIGLE, MICHAEL MORRISON, BENJAMIN NEATE, JASON RUSSELL, JAMES SAVAGE, DUSTIN SLAUGHTER, WALTER SMOLAREK, GWEN SNYDER, KEVIN STUTMAN (HOFFMAN, ELIZABETH) (Entered: 12/02/2013)
3 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by SEAN GOINS, MEGGAN DURST, GABRIELLE DUGAN, NOEL AUGUSTINE, RUSSELL EBRIGHT, TIMOTHY KYLE, DANIEL LUDWIG, SHAWN MCMONIGLE, EMMA JOHNSON, DUSTIN SLAUGHTER, DOMINICK KAIN, BENJAMIN NEATE, WALTER SMOLAREK, WILL DARWALL, TOORJO GHOSE, COLLIN MAGNESS, JAMES SAVAGE, GWEN SNYDER, MOSHE BITTERMAN, KYLE HEMPE, JASON RUSSELL, ADAM HILL, ALEX GROSSKURTH, MICHAEL MORRISON, KEVIN

Case: 2:13-cv-6606 As of: 11/06/2017 12:41 AM EST 15 of 19

03/06/2014 03/20/2014
03/24/2014 03/27/2014 03/28/2014 04/15/2014 04/29/2014 04/29/2014 05/20/2014 05/21/2014

STUTMAN, MICHAEL BARANKOVICH. KEVIN BETHEL waiver sent on 1/6/2014, answer due 3/7/2014; CITY OF PHILADELPHIA waiver sent on 1/6/2014, answer due 3/7/2014; DARRYL CRAWFORD waiver sent on 1/6/2014, answer due 3/7/2014; WILLIAM V. FISHER waiver sent on 1/6/2014, answer due 3/7/2014; ANGEL ORTIZ waiver sent on 1/6/2014, answer due 3/7/2014; CHARLES RAMSEY waiver sent on 1/6/2014, answer due 3/7/2014; DARRELL SAMPSON waiver sent on 1/6/2014, answer due 3/7/2014; JOSEPH SISCA waiver sent on 1/6/2014, answer due 3/7/2014; RHONDA C. SMITH waiver sent on 1/6/2014, answer due 3/7/2014; JOSEPH SPOSATO waiver sent on 1/6/2014, answer due 3/7/2014. (LONG, LLOYD) (Entered: 01/15/2014)
4 First MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by KEVIN BETHEL, CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, DARRYL CRAWFORD, WILLIAM V. FISHER, ANGEL ORTIZ, CHARLES RAMSEY, DARRELL SAMPSON, JOSEPH SISCA, RHONDA C. SMITH, JOSEPH SPOSATO.Memorandum.(SHOFFEL, AMANDA) (Entered: 03/06/2014)
5 RESPONSE in Opposition re 4 First MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by WILL DARWALL, NOEL AUGUSTINE, MICHAEL BARANKOVICH, MOSHE BITTERMAN, GABRIELLE DUGAN, MEGGAN DURST, RUSSELL EBRIGHT, TOORJO GHOSE, SEAN GOINS, ALEX GROSSKURTH, KYLE HEMPE, ADAM HILL, EMMA JOHNSON, DOMINICK KAIN, TIMOTHY KYLE, DANIEL LUDWIG, COLLIN MAGNESS, SHAWN MCMONIGLE, MICHAEL MORRISON, BENJAMIN NEATE, JASON RUSSELL, JAMES SAVAGE, DUSTIN SLAUGHTER, WALTER SMOLAREK, GWEN SNYDER, KEVIN STUTMAN. (LONG, LLOYD) (Entered: 03/20/2014)
6 ORDER THAT ORAL ARGUMENT ON THE DEFENDANTS' 4 First MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM WILL BE HELD 4/3/2014 10:00 AM IN COURTROOM 13B BEFORE HONORABLE BERLE M. SCHILLER. SIGNED BY HONORABLE BERLE M. SCHILLER ON 3/24/2014. 3/25/2014 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(uh, ) (Entered: 03/25/2014)
7 ORDER THAT ORAL ARGUMENT ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT WILL NOW BE HELD ON 4/14/14 AT 10:30 AM IN COURTROOM 13B. SIGNED BY HONORABLE BERLE M. SCHILLER ON 3/26/14. 3/27/14 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 03/27/2014)
8 ORDER THAT ORAL ARGUMENT IS RESCHEDULED TO 4/15/14 AT 10:00 AM IN COURTROOM 13B. SIGNED BY HONORABLE BERLE M. SCHILLER ON 3/28/14. 3/31/14 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 03/31/2014)
9 Minute Entry for Oral Argument on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss held on 4/15/14 before Judge Schiller. ESR/Court Reporter: Chris Campoli. C.A.V. (mbh, ) (Entered: 04/16/2014)
10 Transcript of Oral Argument held on 4/15/14 before Judge Berle M. Schiller. Court Reporter/Transcriber Chris Campoli. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 5/20/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/30/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/28/2014. (mbh, ) (Entered: 04/30/2014)
11 Notice of Filing of Official Transcript with Certificate of Service re 10 Transcript − PDF, Entered and Copies Emailed and Mailed.. (mbh, ) (Entered: 04/30/2014)
12 ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. PLAINTIFFS MAY FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH RESPECT TO THEIR CLAIMS OF EXCESSIVE FORCE AND UNREASONABLE SEACH BY 6/20/14. SIGNED BY HONORABLE BERLE M. SCHILLER ON 5/20/14. 5/21/14 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 05/21/2014)
13 MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE BERLE M. SCHILLER ON 5/20/14. 5/21/14 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, )

Case: 2:13-cv-6606 As of: 11/06/2017 12:41 AM EST 16 of 19

05/21/2014 06/20/2014 07/16/2014 07/23/2014 07/23/2014 07/29/2014
08/13/2014
08/14/2014 08/14/2014

(Entered: 05/21/2014)
14 ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. PLAINTIFFS MAY FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT BY 6/20/14. SIGNED BY HONORABLE BERLE M. SCHILLER ON 5/20/14. 5/21/14 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 05/21/2014)
15 NOTICE OF SCHEDULING CONFERENCE SET FOR WEDNESDAY 7/23/2014 AT 10:00 AM IN CHAMBERS (ROOM 13613) BEFORE THE HONORABLE BERLE M. SCHILLER. IT IS EXPECTED THAT THE PARTIES SHALL HAVE CONDUCTED SUBSTANTIAL DISCOVERY BY THE TIME OF THE RULE 16 CONFERENCE. (jp, ) (Entered: 06/20/2014)
16 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, together with with Affirmative Defenses by KEVIN BETHEL, CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, DARRYL CRAWFORD, WILLIAM V. FISHER, ANGEL ORTIZ, CHARLES RAMSEY, DARRELL SAMPSON, JOSEPH SISCA, RHONDA C. SMITH, JOSEPH SPOSATO, certificate of service.(STRAW, CRAIG) Modified on 7/18/2014 (fb). (Entered: 07/16/2014)
17 ORDER THAT THE CLERK IS DIRECTED TO ADD RAUL REYES AS A PLAINTIFF IN THE CAPTION. PLAINTIFFS SHALL FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT THAT INCLUDES REYES'S CLAIMS. SIGNED BY HONORABLE BERLE M. SCHILLER ON 7/23/14. 7/24/14 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 07/24/2014)
18 ORDER THAT C.A. NO. 13−6916 IS CONSOLIDATED WITH C.A. NO. 13−6606. THE CLERK SHALL ADD RAUL REYES AS A PLAINTIFF TO C.A. NO. 13−6606. CIVIL ACTION 13−6916 IS HEREBY CLOSED. ALL FURTHER FILINGS SHALL BE FILED UNDER C.A. NO. 13−6606. SIGNED BY HONORABLE BERLE M. SCHILLER ON 7/23/2014. 7/28/2014 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED. (ems) (Entered: 07/28/2014)
19 SCHEDULING ORDER: ANY MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE PLEADING AND ANY MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO JOIN OTHER PARTIES SHALL BE FILED BY 8/11/14. ALL FACT DISCOVERY SHALL BE COMPLETED BY 1/28/14. ANY MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHALL BE FILED BY 12/22/14. A FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE WILL BE HELD ON 3/2/15 AT 8:30 AM. FINAL PRETRIAL MOTIONS ARE DUE ON 2/11/15. A JURY TRIAL IS SET FOR 3/2/15 AT 9:30 AM IN COURTROOM 13B. SIGNED BY HONORABLE BERLE M. SCHILLER ON 7/29/14. 7/30/14 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 07/30/2014)
20 First MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint with Proposed Order and Amended Complaint filed by WILL DARWALL, NOEL AUGUSTINE, MICHAEL BARANKOVICH, MOSHE BITTERMAN, GABRIELLE DUGAN, MEGGAN DURST, RUSSELL EBRIGHT, TOORJO GHOSE, SEAN GOINS, ALEX GROSSKURTH, KYLE HEMPE, ADAM HILL, EMMA JOHNSON, DOMINICK KAIN, TIMOTHY KYLE, DANIEL LUDWIG, COLLIN MAGNESS, SHAWN MCMONIGLE, MICHAEL MORRISON, BENJAMIN NEATE, RAUL REYES, JASON RUSSELL, JAMES SAVAGE, DUSTIN SLAUGHTER, WALTER SMOLAREK, GWEN SNYDER, KEVIN STUTMAN.Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Complaint Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint)(LONG, LLOYD) (Entered: 08/13/2014)
21 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT IS GRANTED. THE CLERK SHALL FILE PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT. DEFENDANTS SHALL FILE AN ANSWER BY 9/3/14. SIGNED BY HONORABLE BERLE M. SCHILLER ON 8/14/14. 8/15/14 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 08/15/2014)
22 First Amended Complaint against KEVIN BETHEL, CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, DARRYL CRAWFORD, WILLIAM V. FISHER, ANGEL ORTIZ, POLICE OFFICERS JANE DOE 1−25, POLICE OFFICERS JOHN DOE 1−25, CHARLES RAMSEY, DARRELL SAMPSON, JOSEPH SISCA, RHONDA C. SMITH, JOSEPH SPOSATO filed by SEAN GOINS, MEGGAN DURST, GABRIELLE DUGAN, NOEL AUGUSTINE, RAUL REYES, RUSSELL EBRIGHT, TIMOTHY KYLE, DANIEL LUDWIG, SHAWN MCMONIGLE, EMMA JOHNSON, DUSTIN

Case: 2:13-cv-6606 As of: 11/06/2017 12:41 AM EST 17 of 19

09/03/2014 11/12/2014 11/21/2014
05/18/2015 05/20/2015 05/26/2015 05/29/2015
06/01/2015
06/12/2015 06/15/2015
08/20/2015

SLAUGHTER, DOMINICK KAIN, BENJAMIN NEATE, WALTER SMOLAREK, WILL DARWALL, TOORJO GHOSE, COLLIN MAGNESS, JAMES SAVAGE, GWEN SNYDER, MOSHE BITTERMAN, KYLE HEMPE, JASON RUSSELL, ADAM HILL, ALEX GROSSKURTH, MICHAEL MORRISON, KEVIN STUTMAN and MICHAEL BARANKOVICH, Certificate of Service(mbh, ) (Entered: 08/15/2014)
23 ANSWER and Affirmative Defenses to 22 Amended Complaint, with Jury Demand by KEVIN BETHEL, CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, DARRYL CRAWFORD, WILLIAM V. FISHER, ANGEL ORTIZ, CHARLES RAMSEY, DARRELL SAMPSON, JOSEPH SISCA, RHONDA C. SMITH, JOSEPH SPOSATO.(SHOFFEL, AMANDA) Modified on 9/4/2014 (fb). (Entered: 09/03/2014)
24 Joint Motion to Extend the Discovery Deadline filed by NOEL AUGUSTINE.(HETZNECKER, PAUL) Modified on 11/13/2014 (fb). (Entered: 11/12/2014)
25 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: ALL FACT DISCOVERY SHALL BE COMPLETED B Y 5/22/15. ANY MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHALL BE FILED BY 6/15/15. A FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE WILL BE HELD ON 7/27/15 AT 8:30 AM. THE PARTIES WILL FILE A JOINT PRETRIAL DISCLOSURE MEMORANDUM NO LATER THAN 7/13/15. FINAL PRETRIAL MOTIONS ARE DUE 7/15/15. A JURY TRIAL IS SET FOR 7/27/15 AT 9:30 AM IN COURTROOM 13B. SIGNED BY HONORABLE BERLE M. SCHILLER ON 11/21/14. 11/24/14 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 11/24/2014)
26 NOTICE of Appearance by MATTHEW K. HUBBARD on behalf of KEVIN BETHEL, CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, DARRYL CRAWFORD, WILLIAM V. FISHER, ANGEL ORTIZ, CHARLES RAMSEY, DARRELL SAMPSON, JOSEPH SISCA, RHONDA C. SMITH, JOSEPH SPOSATO with Certificate of Service(HUBBARD, MATTHEW) (Entered: 05/18/2015)
27 NOTICE of Appearance by NIYA L. BLACKWELL on behalf of CITY OF PHILADELPHIA (BLACKWELL, NIYA) (Entered: 05/20/2015)
28 MOTION to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents filed by NOEL AUGUSTINE.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit)(HETZNECKER, PAUL) (Entered: 05/26/2015)
29 RESPONSE in Opposition re 28 MOTION to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents filed by KEVIN BETHEL, CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, DARRYL CRAWFORD, WILLIAM V. FISHER, ANGEL ORTIZ, CHARLES RAMSEY, DARRELL SAMPSON, JOSEPH SISCA, RHONDA C. SMITH, JOSEPH SPOSATO. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(HUBBARD, MATTHEW) (Entered: 05/29/2015)
30 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS IS DENIED. PLAINTIFFS MAY, HOWEVER, INQUIRE INTO OR DEPOSE INDIVIDUALS WITH INFORMATION RELATING TO CELL SITE SIMULATORS OR "STINGRAY" TECHNOLOGY AS APPROPRIATE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE BERLE M. SCHILLER ON 6/1/15.6/1/15 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 06/01/2015)
31 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and All Deadlines filed by NOEL AUGUSTINE..(HETZNECKER, PAUL) (Entered: 06/12/2015)
32 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: THE PARTIES' JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND ALL DEADLINES IS GRANTED. ALL FACT DISCOVERY SHALL BE COMPLETED BY 9/14/15. ANY MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHALL BE FILED BY 10/5/15. SIGNED BY HONORABLE BERLE M. SCHILLER ON 6/15/15. 6/16/15 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 06/16/2015)
33 NOTICE of Appearance by REBECCA PROSPER on behalf of KEVIN BETHEL, CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, DARRYL CRAWFORD, WILLIAM V. FISHER, ANGEL ORTIZ, CHARLES RAMSEY, DARRELL SAMPSON, JOSEPH SISCA,

Case: 2:13-cv-6606 As of: 11/06/2017 12:41 AM EST 18 of 19

09/14/2015 09/17/2015
10/13/2015 10/23/2015 10/23/2015 10/30/2015 11/04/2015 11/16/2015
11/16/2015
11/18/2015 11/30/2015 12/08/2015
12/08/2015
12/11/2015

RHONDA C. SMITH, JOSEPH SPOSATO with Certificate of Service(PROSPER, REBECCA) (Entered: 08/20/2015)
34 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed by NOEL AUGUSTINE..(HETZNECKER, PAUL) (Entered: 09/14/2015)
35 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: THE MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY IS GRANTED. ALL FACT DISCOVGERY SHALL BE COMPLETED BY 10/29/2015. ANY MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHALL BE FILED BY 11/19/2015. SIGNED BY HONORABLE BERLE M. SCHILLER ON 9/16/15. 9/17/15 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 09/17/2015)
36 MOTION for Protective Order filed by CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, CHARLES RAMSEY.Memorandum, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Exhibit A & B, # 3 Text of Proposed Order, # 4 Certificate of Service)(HUBBARD, MATTHEW) (Entered: 10/13/2015)
37 RESPONSE to Motion re 36 MOTION for Protective Order filed by NOEL AUGUSTINE. (HETZNECKER, PAUL) (Entered: 10/23/2015)
38 REPLY to Response to Motion re 36 MOTION for Protective Order filed by NOEL AUGUSTINE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(HETZNECKER, PAUL) (Entered: 10/23/2015)
39 Minute Entry for proceedings held before HONORABLE BERLE M. SCHILLER Telephonic Pretrial Conference held on 10/19/15. (jp, ) (Entered: 10/30/2015)
40 ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER IS GRANTED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE BERLE M. SCHILLER ON 11/4/15. 11/4/15 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) Modified on 12/14/2015 (mbh, ). (VACATED PER ORDER DOC #46) (Entered: 11/04/2015)
41 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions filed by KEVIN BETHEL, CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, DARRYL CRAWFORD, WILLIAM V. FISHER, ANGEL ORTIZ, CHARLES RAMSEY, DARRELL SAMPSON, JOSEPH SISCA, RHONDA C. SMITH, JOSEPH SPOSATO.Memorandum, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Service)(HUBBARD, MATTHEW) (Entered: 11/16/2015)
42 ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' 41 MOTION TO EXTEND THE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS DEADLINE IS GRANTED. DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS SHALL BE FILED ON OR BEFORE 12/17/15. SIGNED BY HONORABLE BERLE M. SCHILLER ON 11/16/15.11/16/15 ENTERED & E−MAILED.(fdc) Modified on 11/19/2015 (tjd). (Entered: 11/16/2015)
Set/Reset Scheduling Order Deadlines: MOTIONS DUE BY 12/17/2015. (fdc, ) (Entered: 11/19/2015)
43 MOTION for Reconsideration of Protective Order Barring the Deposition of Defendant Commissioner Charles H Ramsey filed by NOEL AUGUSTINE.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit)(HETZNECKER, PAUL) (Entered: 11/30/2015)
44 RESPONSE in Opposition re 43 MOTION for Reconsideration of Protective Order Barring the Deposition of Defendant Commissioner Charles H Ramsey filed by CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, CHARLES RAMSEY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − C, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Service)(HUBBARD, MATTHEW) (Entered: 12/08/2015)
45 Memorandum in Opposition, Amended re 43 MOTION for Reconsideration of Protective Order Barring the Deposition of Defendant Commissioner Charles H Ramsey To Be Considered in Lieu of ECF Doc. #44, but in conjunction with ECF Doc. #44−1, 44−2 and 44−3, filed by CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, CHARLES RAMSEY. (HUBBARD, MATTHEW) (Entered: 12/08/2015)
46 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IS GRANTED. THE PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR COMMISSIONER RAMSEY IS VACATED. PLAINTIFFS MAY TAKE COMMISSIONER RAMSEY'S DEPOSITION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE

Case: 2:13-cv-6606 As of: 11/06/2017 12:41 AM EST 19 of 19

12/14/2015 07/25/2016

BERLE M. SCHILLER ON 12/11/15. 12/11/15 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 12/11/2015)
47 ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED LETTER REQUEST THAT THE CURRENT DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE BE SUSPENDED UNTIL COMPLETION OF DISCOVERY IS GRANTED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE BERLE M. SCHILLER ON 12/14/15. 12/15/15 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 12/15/2015)
48 ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 41.1(b). SIGNED BY HONORABLE BERLE M. SCHILLER ON 7/22/16. 7/25/16 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 07/25/2016)