1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LEONARD, TILLERY & SCIOLLA, LLP

By: Michael V. Tinari, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs,

1515 Market Street, Suite 1800 Vincent and Carolyn Minniti

Philadelphia, PA 19102

(215) 567-1530 

__________________________________________ 

VINCENT MINNITI and CAROLYN MINNITI :

h/w :

 : 

Plaintiffs, : 

:

v. : Civil Action No.:

: 

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA :

Law Department :

1515 Arch Street, 14th Floor :

Philadelphia, PA 19102 :

And :

CORPORAL ZAMBINO :

City of Philadelphia : Jury Trial Demanded

Police Department :

One Franklin Square :

Philadelphia, PA 19106 :

And :

SERGEANT BROOKS :

City of Philadelphia :

Police Department :

One Franklin Square :

Philadelphia, PA 19106 :

And :

POLICE OFFICER KEVIN DWYER :

City of Philadelphia Police Department :

One Franklin Square :

Philadelphia, PA 19106 :

And :

SHAW’S AUTO PARTS :

4750 James Street :

Philadelphia, PA 19124 :

Defendants. :

__________________________________________: 

COMPLAINT – CIVIL ACTION

Case 2:04-cv-03209-LS Document 1 Filed 07/07/04 Page 1 of 11
2

1. Plaintiffs, bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of their civil 

rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution. This 

Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 1343. This Court may also exercise 

pendent jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

2. Violations which form the basis of this action have occurred within the Eastern 

District of Pennsylvania. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C.§ 1391 (b).

3. Plaintiffs, Vincent Minniti (hereinafter “Vincent”) and Carolyn Minniti

(hereinafter “Carolyn”), are adult individuals, husband and wife, and citizens of the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, residing at 1663 Hope Avenue, Bensalem, Pennsylvania, 

19020.

4. Defendant, City of Philadelphia (hereinafter “Defendant City”), is a city of the 

first class, located within Philadelphia County, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with a principal 

place of business located at 1515 Arch Street, 14th Floor, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102.

5. Defendant, Corporal Zambino (hereinafter “Defendant Zambino”), is an employee 

of Defendant City, working for the Philadelphia Police Department, and was acting in his official 

capacity at all times pertinent to this Complaint for the City in the City of Philadelphia, with his 

principal place of business located at One Franklin Square, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106.

6. Defendant, Sergeant Brooks (hereinafter “Defendant Brooks”) is an employee of 

Defendant City, working for the Philadelphia Police Department and was acting in his official 

capacity at all times pertinent to this Complaint for the City in the City of Philadelphia, with his 

principal place of business located at One Franklin Square, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106. 

Case 2:04-cv-03209-LS Document 1 Filed 07/07/04 Page 2 of 11
3

7. Defendant, Police Office Dwyer, Badge No. 206493 and/or 4273 (hereinafter 

“Defendant Dwyer”) is an employee of Defendant City, working for the Philadelphia Police 

Department and was acting in his official capacity at all times pertinent to this Complaint for the 

City in the City of Philadelphia with his principal place of business at One Franklin Square, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106.

8. Defendant, Shaw’s Auto Parts (hereinafter “Defendant Shaw’s’), is an entity 

and/or company which provides towing services, with its principal place of business located at 

4750 James Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19124.

9. The Philadelphia Police Department (hereinafter “Police Dept.”), is an agency of 

Defendant City.

10. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiffs were the owners of real property 

located at 1419-1421 Adams Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19124 (hereinafter the 

“Property”).

11. Plaintiffs either jointly and/or individually owned the following vehicles

(hereinafter the “Vehicles”):

(a) Pontiac Lemans;

(b) Chevrolet Truck;

(c) Ford Thunderbird;

(d) Buick 225;

(e) Cadillac Convertible;

(f) Chevrolet Caprice Sedan;

(g) Chevrolet Impala Convertible; and a

(h) Chevrolet Camaro LT.

12. All of the aforementioned vehicles were located behind a fence and were 

physically situated on the Property.

Case 2:04-cv-03209-LS Document 1 Filed 07/07/04 Page 3 of 11
4

13. On or about July 11, 2002, Defendant, City, by and through its Police 

Department, on its own or through its agent, Defendant Shaw’s entered the Property unlawfully 

and proceeded to remove and seize the Vehicles illegally by towing them away.

14. This action was taken without any authority or permission from Plaintiffs, owners 

of the Property and the vehicles.

15. Neither Plaintiff was ever provided with notice from any party that the Vehicles 

were to be removed, nor were Plaintiffs given the opportunity to contest removal of the Vehicles.

16. On Sunday, July 14, 2002, Vincent arrived at the Property and determined that the 

Vehicles were missing.

17. On July 15, 2002, Vincent went to the police station, 15th Police district to 

determine what had happened to his Vehicles. Vincent was informed that the Vehicles were 

located at Defendant Shaw’s.

18. On July 16, 2002, Vincent went to Defendant Shaw’s in order to reclaim his 

Vehicles. Defendant Shaw’s confirmed that they had possession of seven (7) of the eight (8)

Vehicles, and demanded Two thousand two hundred dollars ($2,200.00) for their release to 

Vincent.

19. On July 19, 2002, Vincent returned to Defendant Shaw’s with the full payment 

amount in order to reclaim his Vehicles.

20. After walking through the premises and being unable to locate his Vehicles, 

Vincent inquired with the manager at Defendant Shaw’s regarding their location.

21. Vincent was informed that the Vehicles had been destroyed and that he should 

call Defendant Zambino at the Police Dept. for further information.

Case 2:04-cv-03209-LS Document 1 Filed 07/07/04 Page 4 of 11
5

22. Plaintiffs were not given any notice pertaining to the destruction of the Vehicles 

prior to being informed that they had been destroyed, nor were they informed that they could 

contest their destruction.

23. Vincent then contacted Defendant Zambino who stated that he authorized the 

taking of the vehicles and that the vehicles were not going to be returned.

24. Vincent later spoke to Sergeant Brooks at the Police Department, who also 

informed him of his decision to remove the Vehicles.

25. Upon information and belief, Defendant Dwyer also authorized the unauthorized 

removal, seizure, destruction and/or sale of the subject vehicles.

26. To this date, the Plaintiffs have not been able to recover any of the eight (8) 

vehicles which were unlawfully removed from their property or receive any compensation for 

this loss. 

COUNT I

42 U.S.C. § 1983 – DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS

PLAINTIFFS v. DEFENDANTS CITY, SHAW’S, ZAMBINO, BROOKS AND DWYER

27. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 26 as if the same were fully set 

forth at length herein.

28. At all times pertinent to this Complaint, Defendant City, through the Police Dept., 

and Defendants, Shaw, Zambino, Brooks and Dwyer in performing the acts previously 

mentioned, acted under color of law. These Defendants were also acting under color of a custom 

or usage set out by Defendant City, through its agency, the Police Department.

29. Defendant Shaw’s acted under the direction and as the agent of the Police Dept. 

and is therefore considered to have acted under color of law and/or according to custom or usage 

set out by Defendant City.

Case 2:04-cv-03209-LS Document 1 Filed 07/07/04 Page 5 of 11
6

30. Through the previously mentioned acts, Plaintiffs have been subject to the 

deprivation by Defendants, under color of law and/or according to custom or usage set out by 

Defendant City, of rights, privileges and immunities secured to them by the Constitution and 

laws of the United States, particularly their rights not to be deprived of property without due 

process of law, guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, and the 

right to equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the 

Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

31. At all times relevant to this Complaint, the actions and conduct of Defendants 

with respect to Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ Vehicles, carried and enjoyed the official sanction of and 

were enforcing the official policy of Defendant City and the Police Dept. in trespassing upon 

privately owned property, unlawfully removing privately owned vehicles and then destroying or 

selling the vehicles, all without notice to the owners.

32. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, Plaintiffs were and 

still continue to be, deprived of their property, the aforementioned Vehicles, and have suffered 

much anxiety, distress and financial expense.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs seek judgment against all Defendants for compensatory and 

punitive damages together with interest, costs and attorneys fees.

COUNT II

42 U.S.C. § 1985 – CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS,

PLAINTIFFS v. DEFENDANTS CITY, SHAW’S, ZAMBINO, BROOKS AND DWYER

33. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate Paragraphs one 1 through 32 as if the same were 

fully set forth at length herein.

Case 2:04-cv-03209-LS Document 1 Filed 07/07/04 Page 6 of 11
7

34. By virtue of their actions and conduct previously mentioned all Defendants were 

conspirators engaged in a scheme and conspiracy designed and intended to deny and deprive 

Plaintiffs of their rights guaranteed to them under the Constitution and law of the United States.

35. Specifically Defendants concerted actions have deprived Plaintiffs of their rights 

not to be deprived of property without due process of law, as guaranteed by the Fifth and 

Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, as well as Plaintiffs right to equal protection of the 

laws, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

36. At all times relevant to this Complaint, the actions and conduct of Defendants 

with respect to Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ Vehicles, carried and enjoyed the official sanction of and 

were enforcing the official policy of Defendant City and the Police Dept.

37. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, Plaintiffs were and 

still continue to be, deprived of their property, the aforementioned Vehicles, and have suffered 

much anxiety, distress and financial expense.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs seek judgment against all Defendants for compensatory and 

punitive damages together with interest, costs and attorneys fees. 

COUNT III

CONVERSION

PLAINTIFFS v. DEFENDANTS CITY, SHAW’S, ZAMBINO, BROOKS AND DWYER

38. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate Paragraphs one 1 through 37 as if the same were 

fully set forth at length herein.

39. Defendant City, through the Police Dept., and Defendants Zambino, Brooks and 

Dwyer willfully converted Plaintiffs’ property interest in the Vehicles when it ordered them 

removed from Plaintiffs’ Property and subsequently ordered the destruction and/or sale of said 

Vehicles without authority or permission to do so.

Case 2:04-cv-03209-LS Document 1 Filed 07/07/04 Page 7 of 11
8

40. Defendant Shaw’s willfully converted Plaintiffs’ property interest in the Vehicles

through the physical removal of said Vehicles from Plaintiff’s Property and the subsequent 

destruction and/or sale of these Vehicles without authority or permission to do so.

41. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, Plaintiffs were and 

still continue to be, deprived of their property, the aforementioned Vehicles, and have suffered 

much anxiety, distress and financial expense.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs seek judgment against all Defendants for compensatory and 

punitive damages together with interest, costs and attorneys fees.

COUNT IV

NEGLIGENCE

PLAINTIFFS v. DEFENDANTS CITY, SHAW’S, ZAMBINO, BROOKS AND DWYER

42. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate Paragraphs one 1 through 41 as if the same were 

fully set forth at length herein.

43. Defendants City, Zambino, Brooks and Dwyer owed a duty to Plaintiffs to protect 

their property interests in the Vehicles after they ordered said Vehicles removed from Plaintiffs’ 

Property and took custody and control of said vehicles.

44. Defendant Shaw’s owed a duty to Plaintiffs to protect their property interests in 

the Vehicles after they took control and custody of the aforementioned Vehicles.

45. Defendants City, Zambino, Brooks and Dwyer acted negligently towards 

Plaintiffs in:

a. failing to provide notice to Plaintiffs that the Vehicles were to be removed;

b. failing to provide notice to Plaintiffs that the Vehicles had in fact been 

removed from the Property;

Case 2:04-cv-03209-LS Document 1 Filed 07/07/04 Page 8 of 11
9

c. ordering the removal of the Vehicles from the Property without legal 

justification or permission by Plaintiffs;

d. failing to adequately protect Plaintiffs’ right to return of their Vehicles;

e. failing to provide notice to Plaintiffs that their Vehicles had been taken to 

Defendant Shaw’s;

f. failing to provide notice to Plaintiffs that their Vehicles were scheduled to 

be destroyed and/or sold; 

g. failing to otherwise act in an appropriate and professional manner so as to 

afford Plaintiffs’ their rights to recover their Vehicles in a timely fashion; 

h. failing to protect, keep and store the vehicles while they were in 

Defendants’ possession; and in the possession of Shaw’s and

i. failing to assure that the proceeds from the improper sale of Plaintiffs’ 

vehicles and vehicle parts were provided to Plaintiffs.

46. Defendant Shaw’s acted negligently towards Plaintiffs in:

a. failing to provide notice to Plaintiffs that their Vehicles were in Defendant 

Shaw’s possession;

b. failing to inform Plaintiffs upon inquiry as to the Vehicles that the 

Vehicles were scheduled to be sold and/or destroyed;

c. failing to adequately protect Plaintiffs right to return of their Vehicles;

d. failing to otherwise act in an appropriate and professional manner so as to 

afford Plaintiffs the right to recover their Vehicles in a timely fashion; 

e. failing to protect, keep and store the vehicles of Plaintiffs while they were 

in Defendants’ possession; and

Case 2:04-cv-03209-LS Document 1 Filed 07/07/04 Page 9 of 11
10

f. failing to assure that the proceeds from the improper sale of Plaintiffs’ 

vehicles or vehicle parts were provided to the Plaintiffs.

47. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, Plaintiffs were and 

still continue to be, deprived of their property, the aforementioned Vehicles, and have suffered 

much anxiety, distress and financial expense.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs seek judgment against all Defendants for compensatory and 

punitive damages together with interest, costs and attorneys fees.

 COUNT V

TRESPASS

PLAINTIFFS v. DEFENDANTS CITY, SHAW’S, 

ZAMBINO, BROOKS AND DWYER

48. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate Paragraphs one 1 through 47 as if the same were 

fully set forth at length herein.

49. Defendant City, through the Police Dept. or its agent, Defendant Shaw’s, entered

upon Plaintiffs’ Property for the purpose of removing Plaintiffs’ Vehicles.

50. Defendants Zambino, Brooks and Dwyer authorized, participated in, or otherwise 

precipitated the aforementioned entry onto Plaintiffs’ Property for the purpose of removing said 

Vehicles.

51. This entrance upon Plaintiffs’ Property was done without notice, authorization or 

legal justification, and without the permission or consent, express or implied, of Plaintiffs.

52. Defendant City, through its Police Department or its agent, Defendant Shaw’s, did 

in fact remove Plaintiffs’ Vehicles from the Property.

Case 2:04-cv-03209-LS Document 1 Filed 07/07/04 Page 10 of 11
11

53. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, Plaintiffs were and 

still continue to be, deprived of their property, the aforementioned Vehicles, and have suffered 

much anxiety, distress and financial expense.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs seek judgment against all Defendants for compensatory and 

punitive damages together with interest, costs and attorneys fees.

LEONARD, TILLERY & SCIOLLA, LLP

 BY: ____________________________________

Michael V. Tinari, Esquire

Attorney for Plantiffs, 

Vincent and Carolyn Minniti

Date: _____________

Case 2:04-cv-03209-LS Document 1 Filed 07/07/04 Page 11 of 11