Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01846/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01846-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City and County of San Francisco
Defendant
Estate of Amilcar Perez Lopez
Plaintiff
Margarita Lopez Perez
Plaintiff
Juan Perez
Plaintiff
Eric Reboli
Defendant
San Francisco Police Department
Defendant
Greg Suhr
Defendant
Craig Tiffe
Defendant

Document Text:

1 ARNOLDO CASILLAS, ESQ., SBN 158519

DENISSE O. GASTÉLUM, ESQ., SBN 282771

2 CASILLAS & ASSOCIATES

3 3500 W. Beverly Blvd.

Montebello, CA 90640

4 Tel: (323) 725-0917; Fax: (323) 725-0350

5 Email: acasillas@casillaslegal.com

6 JONATHAN D. MELROD, ESQ., SBN 136441

7 1313 Scheibel Ln.

Sebastopol, CA 95472

8 Tel: (415) 806-0154

9 Email: jonathan4536@sbcglobal.net

10 WILLIAM M. SIMPICH, JR., ESQ., SBN 106672

11 1736 Franklin St., 10th Floor

Oakland, CA 94612

12 Tel: (510) 444-0226

13 Email: bsimpich@gmail.com

14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ESTATE OF AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ, by and through

15 successors in interest, JUAN PEREZ and MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ; JUAN 

PEREZ, individually; MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ, individually

16

17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

19 ESTATE OF AMILCAR PEREZ

20 LOPEZ, by and through successors in 

interest, JUAN PEREZ and

21 MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ;

22 JUAN PEREZ, individually; 

MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ,

23 individually;

24

Plaintiffs, 25

26 vs.

27

28

) CASE NO. 3:15-cv-01846 HSG

)

) STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES

) FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND

) AMENDED COMPLAINT

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1

STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 4:15-cv-01846-HSG Document 38 Filed 12/04/15 Page 1 of 31
1 CHIEF OF POLICE GREG SUHR; ) 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN )

2 FRANCISCO; SAN FRANCISCO )

3 POLICE DEPARTMENT; OFFICER )

CRAIG TIFFE (Badge No. 1312); )

4 OFFICER ERIC REBOLI (Badge No. )

5 1651), and DOES 1 to 10, )

)

6 Defendants. )

7 )

8

9 TO CLERK OF THE COURT:

10 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties, Plaintiffs ESTATE OF

11 AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ, by and through successors in interest, JUAN PEREZ

12 and MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ; JUAN PEREZ, individually; MARGARITA

13 LOPEZ PEREZ, individually (hereinafter collectively “Plaintiffs”), by and through

14 Plaintiffs’ attorneys of record, Arnoldo Casillas and Denisse O. Gastélum, and

15 Defendants CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO

16 POLICE DEPARTMENT), GREG SUHR, CRAIG TIFFE, and ERIC REBOLI

17 (hereinafter collectively “Defendants”), by and through their attorney of record, Peter

18 J. Keith and Elizabeth Pederson, that Plaintiffs shall be granted leave to file

19 Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint in the form attached hereto as Exhibit “1”.

20 The parties, by and through their respective attorneys of record, also hereby stipulate

21 that the attached proposed Second Amended Complaint (Exhibit “1”) be deemed to

22 be the amended pleading and that it be deemed filed and served as of the date the

23 order is signed.

24 The parties, by and through their respective attorneys of record, further

25 stipulate that Defendants shall be given thirty (30) days as of the date the order is

26 signed to file and serve a responsive pleading.

27

28

2

STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 4:15-cv-01846-HSG Document 38 Filed 12/04/15 Page 2 of 31
1 The parties, by and through their respective attorneys of record, further

2 stipulate that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint,

3 currently set for hearing on January 21, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. at Courtroom 15, 18th

4 Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco CA 94102, be taken off calendar as

5 moot.

6 IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.

7

8 Dated: December 2, 2015 CASILLAS & ASSOCIATES

9 By: /s/ Denisse O. Gastélum

10 ARNOLDO CASILLAS

11 DENISSE O. GASTÉLUM

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ESTATE OF

12 AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ, by and through

13 successors in interest, JUAN PEREZ and

MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ; JUAN

14 PEREZ, individually; MARGARITA LOPEZ

15 PEREZ, individually

16

Dated: December 2, 2015 DENNIS J. HERRERA

17 City Attorney

18 CHERYL ADAMS 

Chief Trial Deputy

19 PETER J. KEITH

20 ELIZABETH PEDERSON 

Deputy City Attorneys

21

22 By:/s/Peter J. Keith 

PETER J. KEITH

23 Attorneys for Defendants

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 24 (including SAN FRANCISCO POLICE

DEPARTMENT),GREG SUHR, CRAIG 25 TIFFE, and ERIC REBOLI

26

27

28

3

STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 4:15-cv-01846-HSG Document 38 Filed 12/04/15 Page 3 of 31
1 ARNOLDO CASILLAS, ESQ., SBN 158519

DENISSE O. GASTÉLUM, ESQ., SBN 282771

2 CASILLAS & ASSOCIATES

3 3500 W. Beverly Blvd.

Montebello, CA 90640

4 Tel: (323) 725-0917; Fax: (323) 725-0350

5 Email: acasillas@casillaslegal.com

6 JONATHAN D. MELROD, ESQ., SBN 136441

7 1313 Scheibel Ln.

Sebastopol, CA 95472

8 Tel: (415) 806-0154

9 Email: jonathan4536@sbcglobal.net

10 WILLIAM M. SIMPICH, JR., ESQ., SBN 106672

11 1736 Franklin St., 10th Floor

Oakland, CA 94612

12 Tel: (510) 444-0226

13 Email: bsimpich@gmail.com

14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ESTATE OF AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ, by and through

15 successors in interest, JUAN PEREZ and MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ; JUAN 

PEREZ, individually; MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ, individually

16

17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

19 ESTATE OF AMILCAR PEREZ

20 LOPEZ, by and through successors in 

interest, JUAN PEREZ and

21 MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ;

22 JUAN PEREZ, individually; 

MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ,

23 individually;

24

Plaintiffs, 25

26 vs.

27 CHIEF OF POLICE GREG SUHR;

28 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

) CASE NO. 3:15-cv-01846 HSG

)

) SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

) FOR DAMAGES

)

) 1. Excessive Force/Unreasonable

) Seizure (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

) 2. Municipal Liability for

) Unconstitutional Customs and

) Practices (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

) 3. Supervisory Liability for

) Ratification and Failure to Train,

) Supervise, and Discipline (42

) U.S.C. § 1983)

1

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 4:15-cv-01846-HSG Document 38 Filed 12/04/15 Page 4 of 31
1 FRANCISCO; SAN FRANCISCO ) 

POLICE DEPARTMENT; OFFICER )

2 CRAIG TIFFE (Badge No. 1312); )

3 OFFICER ERIC REBOLI (Badge No. )

1651), and DOES 1 to 10, )

4 )

5 Defendants. )

)

6

7

4. Interference with Familial Integrity 

Substantive Due Process Violation 

(42 U.S.C. § 1983)

5. Assault & Battery

6. Wrongful Death

7. Survivorship

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

8 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

9 COME NOW Plaintiffs ESTATE OF AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ, by and

10 through successors in interest, JUAN PEREZ and MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ,

11 and JUAN PEREZ, and MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ, individually, and allege as

12 follows:

13 INTRODUCTION

14 1. This civil rights action seeks to establish the true and unequivocal facts

15 surrounding the shooting and killing of Amilcar Perez Lopez by Officer Craig Tiffe

16 and Officer Eric Reboli of the San Francisco Police Department. This civil rights

17 action further seeks to establish the violations of fundamental rights under the United

18 States Constitution in connection with the killing of Amilcar Perez Lopez on or about

19 February 26, 2015.

20 2. Amilcar was a humble and hardworking young man, who wanted

21 nothing more in life than to provide for his parents. His death has been a profound

22 and unimaginable loss to his parents, the present Plaintiffs.

23 3. Without justification or cause, Defendants Officer Tiffe and Officer

24 Reboli shot and killed Amilcar when they shot five (5) rounds of ammunition into the

25 back of his body and one round into the back of his head as Amilcar ran away from

26 them. This coldblooded shooting was absolutely unjustified and it is Plaintiffs’ goal

27

28

2

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 4:15-cv-01846-HSG Document 38 Filed 12/04/15 Page 5 of 31
1 to show that the cowardly killing of Amilcar was a senseless and unwarranted act of

2 police abuse.

3 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4 4. This civil action is brought for the redress of alleged deprivations of

5 constitutional rights as protected by 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, 1988, the Fourth

6 and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction is

7 founded on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and 1367.

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

9 Defendants reside in, and all incidents, events, and occurrences giving rise to this

10 action occurred in the City and County of San Francisco, California.

11 6. With respect to Plaintiffs’ supplemental state claims, Plaintiffs request

12 that this Court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims as they arise from

13 the same facts and circumstances which underlie the federal claims.

14 PARTIES

15 7. Decedent Amilcar Perez Lopez was an individual residing in the City

16 and County of San Francisco, California. The claims made by the ESTATE OF

17 AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ, are brought by Juan Perez and Margarita Perez Lopez,

18 the successors in interest to the Estate of Amilcar Perez Lopez pursuant to California

19 Code of Civil Procedure § 377.32.

20 8. Plaintiffs JUAN PEREZ and MARGARITA PEREZ LOPEZ, are and

21 were, at all times relevant hereto, the natural father and mother of decedent Amilcar

22 Perez Lopez.

23 9. Defendant CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO (hereinafter

24 “SAN FRANCISCO”) is and was, at all relevant times hereto, a public entity, duly

25 organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, with

26 the capacity to sue and be sued. Defendant SAN FRANCISCO is responsible for the

27 actions, omissions, policies, procedures, practices and customs of its various agents

28

3

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 4:15-cv-01846-HSG Document 38 Filed 12/04/15 Page 6 of 31
1 and agencies. SAN FRANCISCO owns, operates, manages, directs and controls

2 Defendant SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT (hereinafter also “SFPD”),

3 also a separate public entity, which employs other Doe Defendants in this action. At

4 all times relevant to the facts alleged herein, Defendant SAN FRANCISCO was

5 responsible for assuring that the actions, omissions, policies, procedures, practices

6 and customs of its employees, including SFPD employees, complied with the laws

7 and the Constitutions of the United States and of the State of California.

8 10. Defendant Chief of Police GREG SUHR (hereinafter “CHIEF SUHR”)

9 is and was, at all relevant times hereto, an individual and the Chief of Police of the

10 San Francisco Police Department.

11 11. Defendant Officer CRAIG TIFFE (hereinafter “TIFFE”) is a police

12 officer working for the San Francisco Police Department. Defendant TIFFE is sued

13 in his official and individual capacity. At all times relevant to the present action,

14 Defendant TIFFE was acting under the color of law, to wit, under the color of the

15 statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs, and usages of Defendant SAN

16 FRANCISCO, as well as under the color of the statutes and regulations of the State of

17 California.

18 12. Defendant Officer ERIC REBOLI (hereinafter “REBOLI”) is a police

19 officer working for the San Francisco Police Department. Defendant REBOLI is

20 sued in his official and individual capacity. At all times relevant to the present

21 action, Defendant REBOLI was acting under the color of law, to wit, under the color

22 of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs, and usages of Defendant

23 SAN FRANCISCO, as well as under the color of the statutes and regulations of the

24 State of California.

25 13. At all relevant times, each of DOES 1 through 10 were employees of the

26 SFPD. At all times relevant herein, each of DOES 1 through 10 was an employee

27 and/or agent of Defendant SAN FRANCISCO and he or she acted under color of law,

28

4

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 4:15-cv-01846-HSG Document 38 Filed 12/04/15 Page 7 of 31
1 to wit, under the color of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs, and

2 usages of Defendant SAN FRANCISCO and the SFPD, as well as under the color of

3 the statutes and regulations of the State of California.

4 14. At all relevant times, each of the Defendants DOES 1 through 10 was

5 acting within his or her capacity as an employee, agent, representative and/or servant

6 of SAN FRANCISCO and is sued in their individual capacities.

7 15. On information and belief, at all relevant times, Defendants TIFFE and

8 REBOLI, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, were residents of the City of San

9 Francisco, California.

10 16. The true names of Defendants DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, are

11 unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious names.

12 Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this Complaint to show the true names and

13 capacities of these Defendants when they have been ascertained. Each of the

14 fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the conduct and

15 liabilities alleged herein.

16 17. Defendants DOES 6 through 10 were also duly appointed police officers,

17 sergeants, lieutenants, detectives, or other supervisors, officials, executives and/or

18 policymakers of SFPD, a department and subdivision of Defendant SAN

19 FRANCISCO, and at all times mentioned herein said Defendants were acting in the

20 course and scope of their employment with Defendant SAN FRANCISCO, which is

21 liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior pursuant to California Government

22 Code § 815.2.

23 18. Defendants DOES 1 through 3 are supervisorial employees for

24 Defendant SAN FRANCISCO who were acting under color of law within the course

25 and scope of their duties as police officers for Defendant SAN FRANCISCO.

26 Defendants DOES 1 through 3 were acting with the complete authority and

27 ratification of their principal, Defendant SAN FRANCISCO.

28

5

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 4:15-cv-01846-HSG Document 38 Filed 12/04/15 Page 8 of 31
1 19. Defendants DOES 4 through 10 are managerial, supervisorial, and

2 policymaking employees of Defendant SAN FRANCISCO, who were acting under

3 color of law within the course and scope of their duties as managerial, supervisorial,

4 and policymaking employees for Defendant SAN FRANCISCO. Defendants DOES 9

5 and 10 were acting with the complete authority and ratification of their principal,

6 Defendant SAN FRANCISCO.

7 20. Each of the Defendants caused and is responsible for the unlawful

8 conduct and resulting by, inter alia, personally participating in the conduct, or acting

9 jointly and in concert with others who did so; by authorizing, acquiescing or failing to

10 take action to prevent the unlawful conduct; by promulgating policies and procedures

11 pursuant to which the unlawful conduct occurred; by failing and refusing, with

12 deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs’ rights, to initiate and maintain adequate

13 supervision and/or training; and, by ratifying the unlawful conduct that occurred by

14 agents and peace officers under their direction and control. Whenever and wherever

15 reference is made in this Complaint to any act by a Defendant, such allegation and

16 reference shall also be deemed to mean the acts and failures to act of each Defendant

17 individually, jointly and severally. They are sued in their individual and official

18 capacities and in some manner are responsible for the acts and omissions alleged

19 herein. Plaintiffs will ask leave of this Court to amend this Complaint to allege such

20 name and responsibility when that information is ascertained. Each of the

21 Defendants is the agent of the other.

22 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

23 21. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as if set

24 forth herein.

25 22. Amilcar Perez Lopez was born on July 27, 1994, and was only 20 years

26 old at the time of his death. He was five feet and three inches tall and weighed 131

27 pounds.

28

6

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 4:15-cv-01846-HSG Document 38 Filed 12/04/15 Page 9 of 31
1 23. On or about February 26, 2015, at approximately 9:54 p.m., Amilcar

2 Perez Lopez was walking to his apartment when he was confronted by a man, who

3 began following and taunting him. An altercation ensued between the man and

4 Amilcar. The altercation subsided and Amilcar began walking northbound on the

5 east sidewalk of Folsom Street. As he walked home, Officer TIFFE and Officer

6 REBOLI surreptitiously rushed at Amilcar from behind. One of the officers grabbed

7 Amilcar Perez Lopez and secured a bear-hug hold around Amilcar’s petite upper

8 body. Because TIFFE and REBOLI wore civilian clothing, and did not identify

9 themselves, Amilcar was not able to determine that the men were police officers.

10 Amilcar broke free by wriggling out from the officer’s hold. Amilcar fled toward the

11 street between two vehicles parked at the east curb of Folsom Street.

12 24. As he fled from them, TIFFE and REBOLI pointed their firearms at the

13 small undersized 20-year-old male running away from them. One of the officers shot

14 five bullets into Amilcar’s back and the other officer fired one bullet into the back of

15 Amilcar’s head. Amilcar had run only a couple of feet before he was shot and killed

16 in cold blood by Officer TIFFE and Officer REBOLI.

17 25. That same evening, CHIEF SUHR, alongside other SFPD officers,

18 supervisors and officials, arrived at the scene and began their investigation of the

19 shooting. Throughout the entire investigation, Amilcar’s body lay dead on the street

20 as blood and brain matter seeped from his remains. At the conclusion of the

21 investigation, CHIEF SUHR declared to a local news station while holding his right

22 hand up near his face and clasping his hand as if holding a knife that Amilcar had

23 “lunged at the officer with a knife overhead. [The officer] fired five shots. The

24 original initiating officer fired one.”

25 26. In the following days, CHIEF SUHR and various SFPD officers,

26 supervisors and officials conducted further investigations into the shooting of

27

28

7

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 4:15-cv-01846-HSG Document 38 Filed 12/04/15 Page 10 of 31
1 Amilcar Perez Lopez. An autopsy was also performed by the City and County of San

2 Francisco Office of the Medical Examiner.

3 27. Notwithstanding the unequivocal physical evidence from the autopsy

4 clearly indicating that Amilcar Perez Lopez had been shot in the back and the

5 corroborating statements from two eye witnesses, CHIEF SUHR falsely declared at a

6 town hall meeting on March 2, 2015, that “the officers were approximately 5 to 6 feet

7 away when the suspect charged at one of the officers with the knife raised over head.

8 Both officers discharged their firearms.” CHIEF SUHR went as far as to present a

9 diagram to indicate the SFPD’s official and false version of the shooting. CHIEF

10 SUHR knowingly misinterpreted the facts in a concerted effort to cover up the

11 cowardly acts of Officer TIFFE and Officer REBOLI.

12 28. Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI killed Amilcar Perez Lopez without

13 justification. The shooting and killing of Amilcar Perez Lopez was without

14 provocation, cause or necessity as Amilcar Perez Lopez did not pose a threat or

15 represent a danger of any nature to anyone, including Defendants TIFFE and

16 REBOLI, at the time of the shooting. Amilcar Perez Lopez was running away from

17 what he believed were two unfamiliar men threatening to hurt him. He was shot in

18 the back as he fled from the officers. Accordingly, the shooting and killing of

19 Amilcar Perez Lopez was unjustified and this use of force was unwarranted and

20 excessive under the circumstances.

21 29. Defendants SAN FRANCISCO and CHIEF SUHR were long aware of

22 the propensity of their police officers, including Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI, to

23 callously and recklessly use excessive force against members of the public,

24 particularly targeting minority groups, and to engage in deceitful misconduct:

25 a. In 2009, a federal lawsuit was filed against Defendants TIFFE and

26 REBOLI by plaintiff, David Magana. The lawsuit alleged that on March

27 30, 2008, Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI beat Magana repeatedly in

28

8

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 4:15-cv-01846-HSG Document 38 Filed 12/04/15 Page 11 of 31
1 the head with a baton causing him to bleed profusely. The lawsuit

2 alleged federal civil rights violations, as well as state claims for assault

3 and battery and the negligent training and supervision by the SAN

4 FRANCISCO and the SFPD. The lawsuit resolved in a settlement.

5 b. As far back as 2004, REBOLI demonstrated unfitness to work as a peace

6 officer when he beat a man unconscious in an elevator while serving as a

7 security guard at the Sir Francis Drake Hotel, located in San Francisco.

8 The SAN FRANCISCO, SFPD, and CHIEF SUHR were aware of this

9 attack having conducted a background check on REBOLI.

10 c. Currently, 13 SFPD officers are being investigated for racist and

11 homophobic text messages targeting African- Americans, Latinos,

12 Asians and homosexuals. These acts further evidence the racist and

13 extremist culture existing amongst SFPD police officers.

14 d. In February of 2015, a video surfaced capturing SFPD Officer Raymond

15 Chu hit and kick a homeless man sleeping on a public bus.

16 e. In January of 2015, D’Paris Williams, a college student, was severely

17 beaten by SFPD police officers Gregory Skaug, Milen Banegas and

18 Theodore Polvina. The officers brutally beat D’Paris for riding his bike

19 on a sidewalk in Valencia Gardens.

20 f. In January 2015, a video captured an unnamed SFPD officer shoving a

21 handicapped man sitting on a wheelchair into the street.

22 g. On October 7, 2014, O’Shaine K. Evans was unlawfully shot and killed

23 by SFPD officer David Goff. O’Shaine K. Evans was sitting in his

24 vehicle when he was shot seven times.

25 h. In March of 2014, Alejandro Nieto was unlawfully shot and killed by

26 several unnamed SFPD police officers. Similar to the investigation

27 surrounding the shooting and killing of Amilcar Perez Lopez, the

28

9

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 4:15-cv-01846-HSG Document 38 Filed 12/04/15 Page 12 of 31
1 investigation into the shooting of Alejandro Nieto uncovered physical

2 evidence contradicting the SFPD’s version of events. A lawsuit is

3 pending regarding this incident.

4 i. In February of 2014, federal indictments were filed against six SFPD

5 officers for constitutional rights violations, extortion, perjury, and

6 falsification of police reports. These acts targeted members of several

7 San Francisco communities, including Mission District where Amilcar

8 Perez Lopez was shot and killed.

9 j. On February 7, 2013, Kevin Clark, an 18-year old college student, was

10 brutally beaten by numerous unnamed SFPD police officers.

11 k. On July 16, 2013, Kenneth Harding was unlawfully shot and killed by

12 SFPD police officers Matthew Lopez and Richard Hastings for allegedly

13 failing to pay a $2.00 transit fare.

14 l. In February of 2012, video footage captured an unnamed SFPD officer

15 repeatedly punching a subdued suspect. Despite the video footage,

16 SFPD Sergeant Michael Andraychak ratified the conduct during a press

17 conference.

18 m. In March of 2011, SFPD Officer Razzak was found guilty as a result of

19 an FBI investigation regarding unlawful searches and seizures which

20 were captured of footage.

21 n. In May of 2008, SAN FRANCISCO reached a settlement with

22 kindergarten teacher, Kelly Medora, as a result of the excessive force

23 used against her person by SFPD Officer Christopher Damonte.

24 o. The San Francisco Chronicle, held a series of articles titled “Use of

25 Force” which documented use-of-force incidents by SFPD police

26 officers. The series reports that a core group of roughly 100 officers,

27 out of a force of 2,200, is accountable for 25 percent of the uses of force

28

10

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 4:15-cv-01846-HSG Document 38 Filed 12/04/15 Page 13 of 31
1 logged between 1996 and 2004. The series further reports that in any

2 given year, two-thirds to three-quarters of the department’s officer's

3 report using no force at all.

4 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

5 Excessive Force/Unreasonable Seizure

6 42 U.S.C. § 1983

7 As Against Defendants C. TIFFE, E. REBOLI, and DOES 1 through 10

8 30. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as if set

9 forth herein.

10 31. Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI’s actions described herein violated

11 Plaintiff AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the

12 United States Constitution incorporated and made applicable to states and

13 municipalities by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, by

14 subjecting Amilcar Perez Lopez to unreasonable searches and seizures of his person.

15 32. At the time Amilcar Perez Lopez was shot and killed, he was not

16 engaging in any assaultive or threatening conduct. Under the totality of the relevant

17 circumstances that existed, Amilcar Perez Lopez posed no danger or threat to

18 Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI, or anyone else. The shooting and killing of Amilcar

19 Perez Lopez was unreasonable under the circumstances in every respect.

20 33. These actions violated Amilcar Perez Lopez’s right to be free from

21 unreasonable searches and seizures as guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment to the

22 United States Constitution.

23 34. The violation of Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights occurred pursuant

24 to a policy, custom, or practice, maintained by SAN FRANCISCO of subjecting

25 private citizens to unreasonable searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth

26 Amendment to the United States.

27 ///

28 ///

11

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 4:15-cv-01846-HSG Document 38 Filed 12/04/15 Page 14 of 31
1 35. Defendants’ conduct violated clearly established constitutional or other

2 rights, of which Defendants knew, or of which reasonable public officials should

3 have known, rendering Defendants liable to Plaintiffs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

4 36. The unauthorized, unwarranted killing of Amilcar Perez Lopez was

5 willful and done with a deliberate disregard for the rights and safety of Amilcar Perez

6 Lopez, and therefore warrants the imposition of punitive damages as to Defendants

7 TIFFE and REBOLI.

8 37. After being shot by Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI, Amilcar Perez

9 Lopez endured great physical and emotional pain and suffering.

10 38. Accordingly, Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI are liable to Plaintiff for

11 compensatory damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

12 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

13 Municipal Liability for Unconstitutional Customs and Practices

14 42 U.S.C. § 1983

15 As Against Defendant CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

16 SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT and DOES 1 through 10

17 39. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as if set

18 forth herein.

19 On and before February 26, 2015, and prior to the killing of Amilcar Perez

20 Lopez, Defendants SAN FRANCISCO, SFPD and Does 1 through 10, and each of

21 them, were aware that Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI had engaged in a custom and

22 practice of callous and reckless use of firearms and other misconduct, as summarized

23 in the paragraphs above.

24 40. Defendants SAN FRANCISCO, SFPD and Does 1 through 10, and each

25 of them, acting with deliberate indifference to the rights and liberties of the public in

26 general, and of the present Plaintiffs, and of persons in Amilcar Perez Lopez’s class,

27

28

12

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 4:15-cv-01846-HSG Document 38 Filed 12/04/15 Page 15 of 31
1 situation and comparable position in particular, knowingly maintained, enforced and

2 applied customs and practices of:

3 a. Encouraging, accommodating, or ratifying the shooting of residents; the

4 use of excessive and unreasonable force, including deadly force;

5 b. Encouraging, accommodating, or facilitating a “code of silence” among

6 SFPD officers/supervisors, pursuant to which false reports were

7 generated and excessive and unreasonable force was covered up;

8 c. Employing and retraining, as police officers and other personnel,

9 including individuals such as Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI, who said

10 Defendants knew or reasonably should have known had dangerous

11 propensities for abusing their authority and for mistreating members of

12 the public;

13 d. Inadequately supervising, training, and disciplining SFPD police

14 officers, including Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI, who said

15 Defendants knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have

16 known had the aforementioned propensities and character traits;

17 e. Maintaining grossly inadequate procedures for reporting, supervising,

18 investigating, reviewing, disciplining and controlling intentional

19 misconduct by officers;

20 f. Assigning police officers with known histories of misconduct, including

21 criminal conduct, in accord with SFPD custom of assigning these police

22 officers to come into contact with members of the public;

23 g. Ratifying wrongful conduct by police officers and supervisors which

24 result in serious injuries and death to members of the public, civil

25 litigation judgments and settlements by failing to implement corrective

26 action to prevent repetition of the wrongful conduct; and

27

28

13

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 4:15-cv-01846-HSG Document 38 Filed 12/04/15 Page 16 of 31
1 h. Failing to discipline, investigate and take corrective actions against

2 SFPD police officers for misconduct, including, but not limited to,

3 unlawful detention, excessive force and false reports.

4 41. By reason of the aforementioned customs and practices, Plaintiffs were

5 severely injured and subjected to pain and suffering as alleged above in the First

6 Claim for Relief.

7 42. Defendants SAN FRANCISCO, SFPD and Does 1 through 10, with

8 various other officials, whether named or unnamed, had either actual or constructive

9 knowledge of the deficient policies, practices and customs alleged in the paragraphs

10 above. Despite having knowledge as stated above these Defendants condoned,

11 tolerated and through actions and inactions thereby ratified such customs and

12 practices. Said Defendants also acted with deliberate indifference to the foreseeable

13 effects and consequences of these policies with respect to the constitutional rights of

14 Plaintiffs and other individuals similarly situated.

15 43. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants

16 TIFFE and REBOLI each had a history and propensity for acts of the nature

17 complained of herein and manifested such propensity prior to and during their

18 employment and/or agency with Defendant SAN FRANCISCO. Plaintiffs are further

19 informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants SAN FRANCISCO, SFPD,

20 and Does 1through 10, knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have

21 known, of such prior history and propensity at the time such individuals were hired

22 and/or during the time of their employment. These Defendants’ disregard of this

23 knowledge and/or failure to adequately investigate and discover and correct such

24 facts caused the violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

25 44. The policies, practices, and customs implemented and maintained and

26 still tolerated by Defendants SAN FRANCISCO, SFPD and Does 1 through 10, and

27

28

14

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 4:15-cv-01846-HSG Document 38 Filed 12/04/15 Page 17 of 31
1 each of them, were affirmatively linked to and were a significantly influential force

2 behind the injuries of Plaintiffs.

3 45. By reason of the aforementioned acts and omissions, Amilcar Perez

4 Lopez was shot and killed by Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI.

5 46. Accordingly, Defendant SAN FRANCISCO is liable to Plaintiffs for

6 compensatory damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

7 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

8 Supervisory Liability for Ratification and

9 Failure to Train, Supervise and Discipline

10 42 U.S.C. § 1983

11 As Against Defendant CHIEF GREG SUHR, and DOES 1 through 10

12 47. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as if set

13 forth herein.

14 48. On and before February 26, 2015, and prior to the killing of Amilcar

15 Perez Lopez, Defendant CHIEF SUHR and Does 1 through 10, and each of them,

16 were aware that Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI had engaged in a custom and

17 practice of callous and reckless use of firearms and other misconduct, as summarized

18 in the paragraphs above.

19 49. Defendant CHIEF SUHR and Does 1through10 are sued in their

20 individual and personal capacities as supervisors and line officers on duty at the time

21 of the shooting of Amilcar Perez Lopez, and for their ongoing duties as supervisors

22 responsible for the investigation of the shooting and killing of Amilcar Perez Lopez

23 by Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI.

24 50. As described in more detail in the paragraphs above, Defendant CHIEF

25 SUHR was presented with physical evidence unequivocally confirming that all six

26 shots entering the back of Amilcar’s upper torso and head, and despite this glaring

27 example of excessive force, and in light of the circumstances, CHIEF SUHR ratified

28

15

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 4:15-cv-01846-HSG Document 38 Filed 12/04/15 Page 18 of 31
1 the conduct of Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI to ensure that said Defendants did not

2 receive any meaningful discipline.

3 51. CHIEF SUHR is sued in his individual and personal capacity. CHIEF

4 SUHR knew or reasonably could have known, of his subordinates’ ongoing

5 constitutional violations, use of excessive force on members of the public, failure to

6 investigate incidents involving use of force. CHIEF SUHR failed to act to prevent

7 these acts and he acquiesced, condoned or ratified a custom, practice or policy of

8 ongoing misconduct by his subordinates, including Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI.

9 CHIEF SUHR is sued in his individual capacity for his own culpable action or

10 inaction in the training, supervisor, or control of his subordinates. CHIEF SUHR is

11 also sued for his acquiescence in the constitutional deprivations as alleged herein

12 and/or conduct that showed a reckless or callous indifference to the rights of persons

13 by implementation of policies, rules or directives. CHIEF SUHR’s actions and/or

14 inactions set in motion a series of acts by others, which he knew or reasonably should

15 have known, would cause others to inflict the constitutional violations alleged herein

16 52. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that prior to the

17 incident alleged herein, on or before February 26, 2015, and subsequent hereto,

18 CHIEF SUHR knew or reasonably should have known, that SAN FRANCISCO

19 police officers, including Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI, in the course and scope of

20 their employment under color of law, committed similar acts of using unjustified

21 excessive and deadly force, failure to investigate officer misconduct and violation of

22 constitutional rights, which wrongful conduct resulted in ongoing use of excessive

23 force against members of the public.

24 53. Defendants CHIEF SUHR and Does 1 through 10, and each of them,

25 acting with deliberate indifference to the rights and liberties of the public in general,

26 and of the present Plaintiffs, and of persons in Amilcar Perez Lopez’s class, situation

27

28

16

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 4:15-cv-01846-HSG Document 38 Filed 12/04/15 Page 19 of 31
1 and comparable position in particular, knowingly maintained, enforced and applied

2 customs and practices of:

3 a. Ratifying wrongful conduct by police officers and supervisors which

4 result in serious injuries and death to members of the public, civil

5 litigation judgments and settlements by failing to implement corrective

6 action to prevent repetition of the wrongful conduct;

7 b. Failing to discipline, investigate and take corrective actions against

8 SFPD police officers for misconduct, including, but not limited to,

9 unlawful detention, excessive force and false reports;

10 c. Ratifying investigative reports and diagrams designed to vindicate the

11 use of force against members of the public, regardless of whether such

12 acts were justified;

13 d. Ratifying investigative reports and diagrams which uncritically rely

14 solely on the word of officers involved in the aforementioned

15 confrontations and which systematically fail to credit testimony by non16 officer witnesses;

17 e. Ratifying investigative reports and diagrams which omit factual

18 information and physical evidence which contradicts the accounts of the

19 involved officers, including contradictory physical evidence revealed

20 from autopsy reports;

21 f. Issuing false public statements exonerating officers and other personnel

22 involved in such incidents even after being presented with contradictory

23 reliable physical evidence, such as autopsy reports;

24 g. Employing and retraining, as police officers and other personnel,

25 including individuals such as Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI, who said

26 Defendants knew or reasonably should have known had dangerous

27

28

17

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 4:15-cv-01846-HSG Document 38 Filed 12/04/15 Page 20 of 31
1 propensities for abusing their authority and for mistreating members of

2 the public; and

3 h. Inadequately supervising, training, controlling, assigning, and

4 disciplining SFPD police officers, including Defendants TIFFE and

5 REBOLI, who said Defendants knew or in the exercise of reasonable

6 care should have known had the aforementioned propensities and

7 character traits.

8 54. By reason of the aforementioned customs and practices, Plaintiffs were

9 severely injured and subjected to pain and suffering as alleged above in the First

10 Claim for Relief.

11 55. By reason of the aforementioned acts and omissions, Amilcar Perez

12 Lopez was shot and killed by Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI.

13 56. Accordingly, Defendant SAN FRANCISCO is liable to Plaintiffs for

14 compensatory damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Defendant CHIEF SUHR

15 is liable to Plaintiffs for punitive damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

16 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

17 Interference with Familial Integrity

18 Substantive Due Process Violation

19 42 U.S.C. § 1983

20 As Against Defendants C. TIFFE, E. REBOLI, CHIEF GREG SUHR,

21 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO POLICE

22 DEPARTMENT and DOES 1 through 10

23 57. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as if set

24 forth herein.

25 58. The present claim is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for violation

26 of the right of familial integrity guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the

27 United States Constitution.

28 ///

18

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 4:15-cv-01846-HSG Document 38 Filed 12/04/15 Page 21 of 31
1 59. As alleged above, the shooting and killing of Amilcar Perez Lopez was

2 unreasonable under the circumstances of the encounter between Amilcar Perez Lopez

3 and Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI. As such, the shooting and killing of Amilcar

4 Perez Lopez violated the constitutional limits on police use of deadly force in

5 violation of the Fourth Amendment’s limits on unreasonable seizures.

6 60. At the same time, the shooting and killing of Amilcar Perez Lopez by

7 Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI violated the rights of Plaintiffs JUAN PEREZ and

8 MARGARITA PEREZ LOPEZ to be free from police interference in their

9 relationship with Amilcar Perez Lopez.

10 61. The unreasonable conduct of Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI was the

11 direct and proximate cause of the death of Amilcar Perez Lopez. As a result of the

12 unreasonable conduct of Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI, Plaintiffs lost Amilcar

13 Perez Lopez, as well as his love, affection, society and moral support.

14 62. The unreasonable conduct of these Defendants was willful and done

15 with a deliberate disregard for the rights and safety of Amilcar Perez Lopez and the

16 present Plaintiffs and therefore warrants the imposition of punitive damages as to

17 Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI.

18 63. Accordingly, Defendants CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

19 and DOES 1 through 10 are liable to Plaintiffs for compensatory damages pursuant to

20 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

21 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

22 ASSAULT & BATTERY

23 Against Defendants C. TIFFE, E. REBOLI,

24 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO POLICE

25 DEPARTMENT and DOES 1 through 10

26 64. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as if set

27 forth herein.

28 ///

19

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 4:15-cv-01846-HSG Document 38 Filed 12/04/15 Page 22 of 31
1 65. This cause of action arises under the general laws and Constitution of the

2 State of California. Plaintiffs have complied with the California Tort Claims Act

3 requirements.

4 66. Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI assaulted and battered Amilcar Perez5 Lopez, as pleaded herein above, when said Defendants acted intentionally to cause,

6 and did cause, said non-consensual, unprivileged, unjustified, excessive, harmful or

7 offensive contact to the person of Amilcar Perez Lopez by unreasonably and unjustly

8 shooting and killing Amilcar Perez Lopez.

9 67. These acts were undertaken by Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI

10 intentionally and without justification.

11 68. As a result of these deliberate and unjustified acts undertaken by

12 Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI, Amilcar Perez Lopez endured great physical and

13 emotional pain and suffering.

14 69. These deliberate and unjustified acts undertaken by Defendants TIFFE

15 and REBOLI were willful and done with a deliberate disregard for the rights and

16 safety of Amilcar Perez Lopez and, therefore, warrant the imposition of punitive

17 damages as to Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI.

18 70. Defendants CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO and SAN

19 FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT are liable to Plaintiffs for the acts of their

20 public employees, the individual Defendants herein, for conduct and/or omissions

21 herein alleged, pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior, codified at California

22 Government Code § 815.2.

23 SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

24 WRONGFUL DEATH

25 Against Defendants C. TIFFE, E. REBOLI, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

26 FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT

27 and DOES 1 through 10

28

20

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 4:15-cv-01846-HSG Document 38 Filed 12/04/15 Page 23 of 31
1 71. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as if set

2 forth herein.

3 72. This cause of action arises under the general laws and Constitution of the

4 State of California. Plaintiffs have complied with the California Tort Claims Act

5 requirements.

6 73. Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI, while working as police officers of the

7 SFPD, and acting within the course and scope of their duties, employed negligent

8 tactics and intentionally and/or without due care shot Amilcar Perez Lopez. The

9 shooting resulted as a result of Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI’s unsafe, improper

10 and negligent tactics. As a result of these intentional acts and negligence, Amilcar

11 Perez Lopez suffered serious injuries and lost his life. Defendants TIFFE and

12 REBOLI had no legal or reasonable justification for their actions.

13 74. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants REBOLI

14 and TIFFE, Amilcar Perez Lopez lost his life. Plaintiffs have been deprived of the

15 life-long love, affection, comfort, and society of Amilcar Perez Lopez, and will

16 continue to be so deprived for the remainder of their natural lives. Plaintiffs were

17 further caused to pay funeral and burial expenses as a result of the conduct of

18 Defendants REBOLI and TIFFE.

19 75. Defendants CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO and SAN

20 FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT are vicariously liable for the wrongful,

21 intentional and/or negligent acts of Defendants REBOLI and TIFFE, and DOES 1

22 through 10, pursuant to California Government Code § 815.2, which provides that a

23 public entity is liable for the injuries caused by its employees within the scope of the

24 employment if the employee’s act would subject him or her to liability.

25 SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

26 SURVIVORSHIP

27

28

21

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 4:15-cv-01846-HSG Document 38 Filed 12/04/15 Page 24 of 31
1 Against Defendants C. TIFFE, E. REBOLI, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

2 FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT and DOES 1

3 through 10

4 76. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as if set

5 forth herein.

6 77. This cause of action arises under the general laws and Constitution of the

7 State of California. Plaintiffs have complied with the California Tort Claims Act

8 requirements.

9 78. Plaintiffs Estate of Amilcar Perez Lopez, by and through successors in

10 interest, Juan Perez and Margarita Perez Lopez, and Juan Perez and Margarita Perez

11 Lopez, are the legal heirs and successors in interest of Amilcar Perez Lopez, and the

12 present claim is brought by them as the legal heirs and successors in interest of

13 Amilcar Perez Lopez as permitted by of the California Code of Civil Procedure §

14 377.30.

15 79. On February 26, 2015, Amilcar Perez Lopez lost his life and causes of

16 action arose in his favor before he died. Amilcar Perez Lopez would have been a

17 Plaintiff in this action, had Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI not shot and killed him.

18 80. On February 26, 2015, and for a measurable period of time before the

19 death of Amilcar Perez Lopez, personal property of his was damaged or destroyed,

20 and while alive said decedent had valid claims and causes of action to recover

21 damages for, among other things, personal property damage, and prejudgment

22 interest as allowed by law and costs of suit.

23 81. The conduct of all the Defendants as herein set forth above was tortious

24 in that, among other things, Defendants REBOLI and TIFFE deliberately shot

25 Amilcar Perez Lopez without cause or justification, or otherwise contributed to the

26 shooting as spelled out herein above.

27

28

22

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 4:15-cv-01846-HSG Document 38 Filed 12/04/15 Page 25 of 31
1 82. Said conduct was the direct and proximate cause of the damages suffered

2 by decedent Amilcar Perez Lopez, as alleged above, which were sustained and

3 incurred for a measurable period of time by him before his death. Plaintiffs,

4 therefore, seek recovery for personal property damages, and all other related

5 expenses, damages, and losses, including punitive damages, as permitted by Code of

6 Civil Procedure § 377.34, against the present non-government entity Defendants,

7 according to proof at trial.

8 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

9 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs requests entry of judgment in their favor and against

10 Defendants as follows:

11 A. For compensatory damages, including pre-death pain and suffering

12 damages, general damages and special damages, and statutory damages for violation

13 of the laws and Constitution of the United States and State of California, in an

14 amount to be determined at trial;

15 B. For punitive damages against Defendants C. TIFFE and E. REBOLI

16 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and any other applicable laws or status, in an amount

17 sufficient to deter and make an example of each non-government entity Defendant;

18 C. For prejudgment interest to be determined at trial;

19 D. For reasonable costs of this suit and attorneys’ fees, including

20 attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and

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

22 appropriate.

23

24 Dated: December 1, 2015 CASILLAS & ASSOCIATES

25

26 By _/s/ Arnoldo Casillas

ARNOLDO CASILLAS

27 DENISSE O. GASTÉLUM

28

23

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 4:15-cv-01846-HSG Document 38 Filed 12/04/15 Page 26 of 31
1 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ESTATE OF 

AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ, by and through

2 successors in interest, JUAN PEREZ and

3 MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ; JUAN 

PEREZ, individually; MARGARITA LOPEZ

4 PEREZ, individually

5

6 Dated: December 1, 2015 JONATHAN D. MELROD, ESQ.

7

8 By /s/ Jonathan D. Melrod

JONATHAN D. MELROD

9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ESTATE OF

10 AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ, by and through 

successors in interest, JUAN PEREZ and 11 MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ; JUAN

12 PEREZ, individually; MARGARITA LOPEZ

13 PEREZ, individually

14 Dated: December 1, 2015 WILLIAM M. SIMPICH, JR., ESQ.

15

16 By /s/ William M. Simpich

WILLIAM M. SIMPICH, JR.

17 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ESTATE OF

18 AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ, by and through 

successors in interest, JUAN PEREZ and

19 MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ; JUAN

20 PEREZ, individually; MARGARITA LOPEZ 

PEREZ, individually 21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

24

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 4:15-cv-01846-HSG Document 38 Filed 12/04/15 Page 27 of 31
1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2 Plaintiffs ESTATE OF AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ, by and through successors

3 in interest, JUAN PEREZ and MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ, and JUAN PEREZ,

4 and MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ hereby demand trial by jury.

5

6 Dated: December 1, 2015 CASILLAS & ASSOCIATES

7 By _/s/ Arnoldo Casillas

8 ARNOLDO CASILLAS

9 DENISSE O. GASTÉLUM

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ESTATE OF

10 AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ, by and through

11 successors in interest, JUAN PEREZ and

MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ; JUAN

12 PEREZ, individually; MARGARITA LOPEZ

13 PEREZ, individually

14

15 Dated: December 1, 2015 JONATHAN D. MELROD, ESQ.

16

By /s/ Jonathan D. Melrod

17 JONATHAN D. MELROD

18 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ESTATE OF 

AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ, by and through

19

successors in interest, JUAN PEREZ and

20 MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ; JUAN 

PEREZ, individually; MARGARITA LOPEZ 21 PEREZ, individually

22

23 Dated: December 1, 2015 WILLIAM M. SIMPICH, JR., ESQ.

24

By /s/ William M. Simpich

25 WILLIAM M. SIMPICH, JR.

26 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ESTATE OF 

AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ, by and through 27 successors in interest, JUAN PEREZ and

28 MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ; JUAN

25

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 4:15-cv-01846-HSG Document 38 Filed 12/04/15 Page 28 of 31
1 PEREZ, individually; MARGARITA LOPEZ 

PEREZ, individually

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

26

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 4:15-cv-01846-HSG Document 38 Filed 12/04/15 Page 29 of 31
1 ARNOLDO CASILLAS, ESQ., SBN 158519

DENISSE O. GASTÉLUM, ESQ., SBN 282771

2 CASILLAS & ASSOCIATES

3 3500 W. Beverly Blvd.

Montebello, CA 90640

4 Tel: (323) 725-0917; Fax: (323) 725-0350

5 Email: acasillas@casillaslegal.com

6 JONATHAN D. MELROD, ESQ., SBN 136441

7 1313 Scheibel Ln.

Sebastopol, CA 95472

8 Tel: (415) 806-0154

9 Email: jonathan4536@sbcglobal.net

10 WILLIAM M. SIMPICH, JR., ESQ., SBN 106672

11 1736 Franklin St., 10th Floor

Oakland, CA 94612

12 Tel: (510) 444-0226

13 Email: bsimpich@gmail.com

14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ESTATE OF AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ, by and through

15 successors in interest, JUAN PEREZ and MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ; JUAN 

PEREZ, individually; MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ, individually

16

17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

19 ESTATE OF AMILCAR PEREZ

20 LOPEZ, by and through successors in 

interest, JUAN PEREZ and

21 MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ;

22 JUAN PEREZ, individually; 

MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ,

23 individually;

24

Plaintiffs, 25

26 vs.

27

28

) CASE NO. 3:15-cv-01846 HSG

)

) ORDER RE:

) STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES

) FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND

) AMENDED COMPLAINT

)

)

)

)

)

)

1

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 4:15-cv-01846-HSG Document 38 Filed 12/04/15 Page 30 of 31
1 CHIEF OF POLICE GREG SUHR; ) 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN )

2 FRANCISCO; SAN FRANCISCO )

3 POLICE DEPARTMENT; OFFICER ) 

CRAIG TIFFE (Badge No. 1312); )

4 OFFICER ERIC REBOLI (Badge No. )

5 1651), and DOES 1 to 10, )

)

6 Defendants. )

7 )

8

9 GOOD CAUSE APPEARING AND THE PARTIES HAVING STIPULATED:

10 Having considered the Stipulation of the Parties to allow Plaintiffs to file their

11 Second Amended Complaint, the Court hereby orders that Plaintiffs have leave to file

12 their Second Amended Complaint without the need for a formal motion. The Court

13 hereby orders Plaintiffs to e-file the attached Second Amended Complaint (Exhibit 

14 “1”) on the docket and upon e-filing it will be deemed served.

15 The Court further orders that Defendants shall be given thirty (30) days as of

16 the date the order is signed to file and serve a responsive pleading.

17 SO ORDERED.

18 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED:

19 Dated: December 4, 2015 By: The Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.

20 United States District Judge 

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Case 4:15-cv-01846-HSG Document 38 Filed 12/04/15 Page 31 of 31