Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00959/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00959-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Sean G. Erenstoft, Esq.

Law Office of Sean G. Erenstoft (SBN 161898)

12100 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1100

Los Angeles, CA 90025

Phone (310) 442-2220

Fax (310) 207-0340

Sean@Erenstoft.com

LOUIS P. DELL, ESQ. (SBN 164830)

LAW OFFICE OF LOUIS P. DELL

11150 West Olympic Blvd., Suite 1120

Los Angeles, CA 90064

Office: 310-914-7400

Fax: 310-914-7435

louis.p.dell@att.net

Attorneys for Plaintiff, Stephen C. Leal

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA; SAN JOSE DIVISION

STEPHEN C. LEAL, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

OFFICER K. SIEGEL, an individual;

SAN JOSE POLICE DEPARTMENT;

CITY OF SAN JOSE; SANTA CLARA

COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS; 

OFFICER ZOMPOLIS (#1635), an

individual formerly named as DOE 1,

OFFICER DURAN (#2520), and

individual formerly named as DOE 2,

OFFICER VILLAGOMEZ (#2632), an

individual formerly named as DOE 3,

SGT. D. WOODS (#1804), an individual

formerly named as DOE 4,

AND DOES 5 through 10, inclusive,

Defendant(s).

_________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. CV 05-00959 JW

STIPULATION AND ORDER

GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge James Ware

Case 5:05-cv-00959-JW Document 28 Filed 04/26/06 Page 1 of 21
Case 5:05-cv-00959-JW Document 28 Filed 04/26/06 Page 2 of 21
Case 5:05-cv-00959-JW Document 28 Filed 04/26/06 Page 3 of 21
April 26, 2006

Case 5:05-cv-00959-JW Document 28 Filed 04/26/06 Page 4 of 21
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Dated: April 24, 2006 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY OF SAN 

JOSE 

CLIFFORD GREENBERG 

Senior Deputy City Attorney, 

CITY OF SAN JOSE and OFFICER K. SIEGEL 

Dated: April 24, 2006 OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL OF 

SANTA CLARA 

Deputy County Counsel, 

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA DEPARTMENT 

OF CORRECTION 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff shall be entitled to file a First Amended 

Complaint, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants CITY OF SAN JOSE and 

OFFICER K. SIEGEL COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION 

shall have 20-days in which to file and serve their response to the amended complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED: 

Dated: 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:05-cv-00959-JW Document 28 Filed 04/26/06 Page 5 of 21
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The parties, through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate that an order may

be entered permitting the plaintiff, Stephen Leal, to file a First Amended Complaint, a

copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

Dated: April 24, 2006 LAW OFFICES OF SEAN G. ERENSTOFT

 

Sean G. Erenstoft, Esq.

Attorney for Plaintiff,

STEPHEN LEAL

Dated: April 24, 2006 LAW OFFICE OF LOUIS P. DELL

 

Louis P. Dell, Esq.

Attorney for Plaintiff,

STEPHEN LEAL

Case 5:05-cv-00959-JW Document 28 Filed 04/26/06 Page 6 of 21
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Dated: April 24, 2006 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY OF SAN

JOSE

 

CLIFFORD GREENBERG

Senior Deputy City Attorney,

CITY OF SAN JOSE and OFFICER K. SIEGEL

Dated: April 24, 2006 OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL OF

SANTA CLARA

 

MICHAEL ROSSI

Deputy County Counsel,

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTION

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff shall be entitled to file a First Amended

Complaint, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants CITY OF SAN JOSE and

OFFICER K. SIEGEL COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION

shall have 20-days in which to file and serve their response to the amended complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED:

Dated:

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:05-cv-00959-JW Document 28 Filed 04/26/06 Page 7 of 21
Exhibit A

Case 5:05-cv-00959-JW Document 28 Filed 04/26/06 Page 8 of 21
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Sean G. Erenstoft, Esq.

Law Office of Sean G. Erenstoft (SBN 161898)

12100 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1100

Los Angeles, CA 90025

Phone (310) 442-2220

Fax (310) 207-0340

Sean@Erenstoft.com

LOUIS P. DELL, ESQ. (SBN 164830)

LAW OFFICE OF LOUIS P. DELL

11150 West Olympic Blvd., Suite 1120

Los Angeles, CA 90064

Office: 310-914-7400

Fax: 310-914-7435

louis.p.dell@att.net

Attorneys for Plaintiff, Stephen C. Leal

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA; SAN JOSE DIVISION

STEPHEN C. LEAL, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

OFFICER K. SIEGEL, an individual;

SAN JOSE POLICE DEPARTMENT;

CITY OF SAN JOSE; SANTA CLARA

COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS; 

OFFICER ZOMPOLIS (#1635), an

individual formerly named as DOE 1,

OFFICER DURAN (#2520), and

individual formerly named as DOE 2,

OFFICER VILLAGOMEZ (#2632), an

individual formerly named as DOE 3,

SGT. D. WOODS (#1804), an individual

formerly named as DOE 5,

AND DOES 5 through 10, inclusive,

Defendant(s).

_________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. CV 05-00959 JW

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR

DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY

TRIAL

Case 5:05-cv-00959-JW Document 28 Filed 04/26/06 Page 9 of 21
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

First Amended Complaint

Introduction

The plaintiff, Stephen C. Leal, alleges and states:

1. This action is filed for money damages brought pursuant to Title 42 of the

United States Code, Sections 1983 and 1988 and the Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution and Statutes of

California and the common law of the State of California against the San Jose Police

Department, the City of San Jose, and the California Department of Corrections and the

several police officers that made contact with Plaintiff during the relevant times

discussed herein. Jurisdiction is founded upon Title 28 of the United States Code,

Sections 1331, 1343(a)(3), and 1391(b) and the above-mentioned statutory and

constitutional provisions, and the pendent jurisdiction of this court to entertain claims

arising under state law.

2. Stephen Leal alleges that the individual defendant police officers made an

unreasonable seizure of the person of Stephen Leal, violating his rights under the

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and that these

defendants assaulted and battered Stephen Leal. It is further alleged that these

violations and torts committed by the individual defendants were committed as a result

of San Jose Police Department and Santa Clara Department of Corrections policies

and customs, and a failure to train or their employee and agents.

3. The claims arose in this district, and venue in this court is therefore

proper.

Parties

4. Plaintiff Stephen C. Leal is a citizen of the United States and the State of

California, County of Los Angeles.

5. During all times mentioned herein, the defendants, Officer K. Siegel,

Officer Zompolis (#1635) (Doe 1 is hereby identified as Officer Zompolis), Officer Duran

(#2520) (Doe 2 is hereby identified as Officer Duran), Officer Villagomez (#2632) (Doe

Case 5:05-cv-00959-JW Document 28 Filed 04/26/06 Page 10 of 21
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

First Amended Complaint

3 is hereby identified as Officer Villagomez), Sgt. D. Woods (#1804) (Doe 4 is hereby

identified as Sgt. D. Woods) and DOES 5-10, were duly appointed and acting officers of

the San Jose Police Department and/or the City of San Jose and/or the Santa Clara

Department of Corrections, acting under color of law, to wit, under color of the statutes,

ordinances regulations, policies, customs, and usages of the State of California, the

City of San Jose and/or the San Jose Police Department.

6. The City of San Jose, California, is a municipal corporation, incorporated

under the laws of the State of California and having its principal place of business in the

State of California, and the public employer of said officers.

7. The San Jose Police Department is a department or subdivision of the

City of San Jose, California.

8. The Santa Clara Department of Corrections is a department or subdivision

of the County of Santa Clara, a political subdivision of the state of California.

9. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued

herein as DOES 5 through 10, inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants by such

fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their true names and

capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that

each of the fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner to plaintiffs as

hereinafter alleged, and that plaintiff’s damages as herein alleged were proximately

caused by their conduct.

10. During all times mentioned herein, the defendants, Does 5 through 10,

are believed to be employees with the San Jose Police Department, the Santa Clara

Department of Corrections, or other law enforcement agencies, acting under color of

law, to wit, under color of the statutes, regulations, policies, customs, and usages of the

State of California, the City of San Jose, the San Jose Police Department, and/or the

Santa Clara Department of Corrections.

/ / / 

/ / /

Case 5:05-cv-00959-JW Document 28 Filed 04/26/06 Page 11 of 21
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

First Amended Complaint

Factual Allegations

11. On or about July 22, 2004, Leal met with clients over a business dinner

from 9:30 p.m. - 11:30 p.m. He had not been drinking alcoholic beverages during the

relevant times hereon.

12. While attempting to exit a parking garage in downtown San Jose, being

unfamiliar with downtown San Jose area and driving patterns; and seeing no traffic

direction signage; Leal mistakenly turned onto Fourth street in the wrong direction.

13. Realizing his error, Leal stopped his vehicle in an attempt to turn back into

the correct direction of traffic.

14. On or about July 23, 2004, while Leal was attempting to turn back into the

correct direction of traffic, San Jose police officer K. Siegel, and another uniformed

officer, pulled behind him and signaled him to stop.

15. Officer Siegel then approached Leal and asked for his license and

registration.

16. When Leal was asked if he had been drinking, he replied “No.”

17. Officer Siegel then became confrontational. 

18. Officer Siegel asked Leal to step out of his car onto the sidewalk and

requested Leal to submit to a field sobriety test.

19. Leal declined to submit to the field sobriety test or a breath test and

politely requested a blood test instead.

20. Officer Siegel replied, "[S]o, you’re refusing to take a test...." 

21. Again. Leal insisted that he be given a blood test as he understood the

sample tendered could be later tested as evidence.

22. The officers arrested Leal.

23. At the time of Leal’s arrest, Officer Siegel misadvised Leal of his right to a

blood test.

24. Leal was then transported to intake facility for booking. He was directed

to various locations in the intake facility and cooperated fully in the booking process. 

Case 5:05-cv-00959-JW Document 28 Filed 04/26/06 Page 12 of 21
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

First Amended Complaint

He was not handcuffed. One or more video cameras situated inside the intake facility

clearly reflect Leal’s cooperation.

25. At one point, Leal was directed into the lobby area of the intake facility

and told to sit down. He did as he was instructed. While Leal sat, the defendant

officers met together at the booking desk and had a brief discussion. Afterwards,

defendant Siegel and another defendant officer remained at the booking desk. Two

other defendant officers remained nearby.

26. Leal was told to stand in front of the booking desk and complete and sign

paperwork pertaining to his alleged refusal to submit to an alcohol test. During this time

the defendant officers were watching Leal, in a manner which suggested that such

conduct was a result and plan of the discussion held between the defendant officers.

27. Upon reviewing the documents placed before him, Leal stated that he

would not sign any documents, which purported to constitute a “refusal” to take any

alcohol test.

28. Upon making that statement, Leal was immediately assaulted by at least

three of the individual defendants believed to be Officer Zompolis, Officer Duran, and

Villagomez, as follows: One of the defendant officers began approaching Leal from

behind, another defendant officer followed. Again, the officers acted and approached in

a manner as if this were part of a prior plan or scheme to use physical force on Leal. 

As they were approaching, Officer Zompolis, who was behind the booking desk,

grabbed Leal’s right hand or wrist and forcefully pulled him, such that a portion of Leal’s

body was stretched over a desk or counter. Then Officers Duran and Villagomez who

had already been approaching from behind each grabbed an arm, hyper-extending both

hands and elbows above and behind his back, forcing Leal’s face down onto the

counter top in front of him and then onto the floor.

29. At no time did Leal resist the efforts or instructions of the police officers.

30. Both officers shouted for Leal not to resist, to which Leal clearly

responded several times, “I am not resisting.”

Case 5:05-cv-00959-JW Document 28 Filed 04/26/06 Page 13 of 21
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

First Amended Complaint

31. Each officer continued to apply additional pressure to his joints, causing

Leal pain and injury.

32. The officers applied such intense pressure to Leal’s wrist, arms and

shoulders, that Leal’s legs involuntarily buckled and he suffered a lapse of bladder

control, urinating in his pants.

33. The entire time this was occurring Officer Siegel was present and within

arms reach of Leal and the officers. He had the ability to intercede but he neither did,

nor said, nothing to stop the assault. During the assault Officer Siegal stood at ease,

and, in a relaxed manner, he picked up some papers from the booking desk, as if

nothing was happening.

34. The officers then yelled for Leal to get off of the floor and they placed his

hands behind his back and applied handcuffs with such force that his circulation was

cut off in both hands.

35. Leal immediately informed the officers that the circulation was being cut

off and asked if they could please loosen the handcuffs to allow him to regain

circulation in his hands. The officers responded, “No.”

36. A waist chain was then applied to Leal’s waist. It was applied with such

force that it also restricted Leal’s circulation and caused bruises on both sides of his

waist.

37. Leal had at no time physically resisted or assaulted the defendants in any

way, and the force used against him was unnecessary, unreasonable and excessive.

38. At no time during the events described above, was the plaintiff intoxicated,

incapacitated, a threat to the safety of himself or others, or disorderly.

39. Leal was then taken to the holding area immediately adjacent to the

booking desk and chained to a chair with his hands by his side.

40. At no time was Leal approached in response to his request for a blood

test.

40. For hours, Leal repeatedly attempted to get an officer’s attention in an

Case 5:05-cv-00959-JW Document 28 Filed 04/26/06 Page 14 of 21
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

First Amended Complaint

attempt to have the handcuffs loosened so as to restore circulation to his hands. Leal

also requested to use the restroom.

41. At no time was Leal attended to by the staff, including the attending nurse.

42. At approximately 4:00 a.m., Leal was finally permitted to use the restroom

and was thereafter immediately placed in a holding cell without restraints.

43. At approximately 6:00 a.m., Leal was moved to another cell, and in the

process was given a TB shot by the attending nurse.

44. Leal was then transported to Elmwood County jail where he was later

bailed out at 11:05 a.m.

45. Defendant Siegel failed to include the details of any assault on Leal in his

police report. Defendant Zompolis wrote in a Non-Compliance Restraint Form which

set forth false statements regarding the assault and was made for the purpose of

covering up any wrongdoing on the part of the defendant officers.

46. Defendant Woods wrote falsely in a Non-Compliance Restraint Form that

he had interviewed Leal and that Leal had stated he wasn’t ready to give the pen back

and that he had no injuries. Again, this false statement was for the purpose of covering

up the wrongdoing on the part of the defendant officers.

47. Leal has since received treatment for the injuries sustained in the assault

and has been diagnosed with nerve damage. He still has limited motion and use of

parts of his body.

48. Complaints of the incident were reported to the San Jose Police

Department, the City of San Jose, as well as the Santa Clara County Department of

Corrections.

49. Stephen Leal has since exhausted his administrative remedies by filing

claims with the Santa Clara County Department of Corrections, the San Jose Police

Department, and the City of San Jose.

50. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of the individual defendants,

the plaintiff Stephen C. Leal suffered the following injuries and damages:

Case 5:05-cv-00959-JW Document 28 Filed 04/26/06 Page 15 of 21
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

First Amended Complaint

a. Violation of his constitutional rights under the Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United states Constitution to be

free from an unreasonable seizure of his person and property;

b. Loss of his physical liberty;

c. Attorney’s fees and bond costs;

d. Physical pain and suffering and emotional trauma and suffering,

requiring expenditure of money for treatment.

51. The actions of the individual defendants violated the following clearly

established and well settled federal Constitutional rights of Stephen C. Leal:

a. Freedom from unreasonable seizure of his person and property;

and,

b. Freedom from the use of excessive, unreasonable and unjustified

force against his person.

52. The conduct of these defendants was reckless and demonstrated a

callous indifference to the federally protected rights of plaintiff entitling plaintiff to

recover punitive damages against them individually.

Count One

42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against the Individual Defendants

53. Paragraphs 1 through 52 are incorporated herein by reference as though

fully set forth.

54. Stephen Leal claims damages for injuries set forth above under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 against each of the individual defendants and Does 5-10 for violation of his

constitutional rights under color of law.

Count Two

Assault and Battery Against the Individual Defendants

55. Paragraphs 1 through 54 are incorporated herein by reference as though

fully set forth.

56. Each of the individual defendants and Does 5-10 assaulted and battered

Case 5:05-cv-00959-JW Document 28 Filed 04/26/06 Page 16 of 21
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

First Amended Complaint

Stephen Leal.

57. As a result of this assault and battery, the plaintiff was damaged as

aforesaid.

Count Three

False Arrest and Imprisonment Against the Individual Defendants

58. Paragraphs 1 through 57 are incorporated herein by reference as though

fully set forth.

59. The illegal and unwarranted acts of each of the individual defendants and

Does 5-10 caused the plaintiff to be illegally arrested and illegally imprisoned.

60. As a result of this false arrest and imprisonment, the plaintiff was

damaged as aforesaid.

Count Four

42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against the City of San Jose

61. Paragraphs 1 through 60 are incorporated herein by reference as though

fully set forth.

62. Prior to July 22, 2004 the City of San Jose developed and maintained

policies or customs exhibiting deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights or

persons in San Jose, California which caused the violation of Leal’s rights.

63. It was the policy and/or custom of the City of San Jose to inadequately

and improperly investigate citizen complaints of police misconduct, and acts of

misconduct were instead tolerated by the City of San Jose.

64. It was the policy and/or custom of the City of San Jose to inadequately

supervise and train its police officers, including the defendant officers, thereby failing to

adequately discourage further constitutional violations on the part of its police officers. 

The City of San Jose did not require appropriate in-service training or retraining of

officers who were known to have engaged in misconduct. 

65. As a result of the above described policies and customs, police officers of

Case 5:05-cv-00959-JW Document 28 Filed 04/26/06 Page 17 of 21
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

First Amended Complaint

the City of San Jose, including the defendant officers, believed that their actions would

not be properly monitored by supervisory officers and that misconduct would not be

investigated or sanctioned, but would be tolerated.

66. The above described policies and customs demonstrated and deliberate

indifference on the part of the policymakers of the City of San Jose to the constitutional

rights of persons coming in contact with policemen in the City’s employ, and were the

cause of the violations of Stephen Leal’s rights alleged herein.

Count Five

42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against the County of Santa Clara

67. Paragraphs 1 through 66 are incorporated herein by reference as though

fully set forth.

68. Prior to July 22, 2004 the County of Santa Clara developed and

maintained policies or customs exhibiting deliberate indifference to the constitutional

rights or persons in San Jose, California which caused the violation of Leal’s rights.

69. It was the policy and/or custom of the County of Santa Clara to

inadequately and improperly investigate citizen complaints of misconduct, and acts of

misconduct were instead tolerated by the County of Santa Clara .

70. It was the policy and/or custom of the County of Santa Clara to

inadequately supervise and train its law enforcement and/or correctional officers,

including the defendant officers, thereby failing to adequately discourage further

constitutional violations on the part of its police officers. The County of Santa Clara did

not require appropriate in-service training or retraining of officers who were known to

have engaged in misconduct. 

71. As a result of the above described policies and customs, law enforcement

and/or correctional officers of the County of Santa Clara , including the defendant

officers, believed that their actions would not be properly monitored by supervisory

officers and that misconduct would not be investigated or sanctioned, but would be

Case 5:05-cv-00959-JW Document 28 Filed 04/26/06 Page 18 of 21
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

First Amended Complaint

tolerated.

72. The above described policies and customs demonstrated and deliberate

indifference on the part of the policymakers of the County of Santa Clara to the

constitutional rights of persons coming in contact with policemen in the County’s

employ, and were the cause of the violations of Stephen Leal’s rights alleged herein.

Prayer for Relief

Wherefore, the plaintiff requests that this court:

73. Award compensatory damages to the plaintiff against the individual

defendants, the City of San Jose, and the County of Santa Clara jointly and severally;

74. Award punitive damages to the plaintiff against the individual defendants;

75. Award costs of this action to the plaintiff;

76. Award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to the plaintiff on Counts One

and Five of the Complaint;

77. Award such other and further relief to the plaintiff which this court deems

appropriate.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 5:05-cv-00959-JW Document 28 Filed 04/26/06 Page 19 of 21
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

First Amended Complaint

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial as provided by Rule 38(a) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure.

Dated: April 24, 2006 LAW OFFICES OF SEAN G. ERENSTOFT

 

Sean G. Erenstoft, Esq.

Attorney for Plaintiff,

STEPHEN LEAL

Dated: April 24, 2006 LAW OFFICE OF LOUIS P. DELL

 

Louis P. Dell, Esq.

Attorney for Plaintiff,

STEPHEN LEAL

Case 5:05-cv-00959-JW Document 28 Filed 04/26/06 Page 20 of 21
Case 5:05-cv-00959-JW Document 28 Filed 04/26/06 Page 21 of 21