- 1 - 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

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

LAW OFFICES OF DALE K. GALIPO

Dale K. Galipo, Esq. (SBN 144074)

dalekgalipo@yahoo.com

21800 Burbank Boulevard, Suite 310

Woodland Hills, CA 91367

Telephone: (818) 347-3333

Facsimile: (818) 347-4118

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALMA RAMIREZ, an individual; H.A., a 

minor, as successor in interest to Hector 

Alvarez, deceased, by and through his 

guardian ad litem Alma Ramirez; L.A., a 

minor, as successor in interest to Hector 

Alvarez, deceased, by and through her 

guardian ad litem Alma Ramirez, 

Plaintiffs,

 vs.

CITY OF GILROY, ADAM MOON, and

DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 

1. Unreasonable Search and Seizure—

Detention and Arrest (42 U.S.C. §

1983)

2. Unreasonable Search and Seizure—

Excessive Force (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

3. Unreasonable Search and Seizure—

Denial of Medical Care (42 U.S.C.

§ 1983);

4. Substantive Due Process

5. Municipal Liability – Ratification

(42 U.S.C. § 1983)

6. Municipal Liability – Inadequate

Training (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

7. Municipal Liability –

Unconstitutional Custom, Practice,

or Policy (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

8. False Arrest/ False Imprisonment

9. Battery

10.Negligence

11.Bane Act (Cal. Civil Code 52.1)

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

MORALES & LEANOS

Jaime A. Leanos

jleanoslaw@pacbell.net

75 E. Santa Clara St., Suite 250

San Jose, CA 95113

Telephone: (408) 294-6800

Facsimile: (408) 294-7102

5:17-cv-00625

Case 5:17-cv-00625-VKD Document 1 Filed 02/07/17 Page 1 of 25
- 2 - 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

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

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Come now Plaintiffs ALMA RAMIREZ; H.A., by and through his guardian ad 

litem Alma Ramirez; and L.A., by and through her guardian ad litem Alma Ramirez, 

for their complaint against Defendants CITY OF GILROY, ADAM MOON, and 

DOES 1-10, inclusive, hereby allege as follows: 

PARTIES

1. At all relevant times, Hector Alvarez, deceased (“DECEDENT”), was an

individual residing in the County of Santa Clara, California.

2. Plaintiff Alma Ramirez (“RAMIREZ”) is the mother of DECEDENT. At

all relevant times, RAMIREZ resided and currently resides in the County of Santa 

Clara, California. RAMIREZ sues in her individual capacity as the mother of 

DECEDENT. In her individual capacity in this suit, RAMIREZ seeks wrongful death 

damages under state and federal law. 

3. Plaintiff H.A. is the minor son of DECEDENT. H.A. resides in the

County of Santa Clara, California. H.A. sues by and through his guardian ad litem, 

Alma Ramirez, H.A.’s mother. H.A. sues in his individual capacity for his own 

damages and for survival damages in his capacity as successor in interest to his father, 

DECEDENT. H.A. seeks wrongful death and survival damages under federal and state 

law.

4. Plaintiff L.A. is the minor daughter of DECEDENT. L.A. resides in the

County of Santa Clara, California. L.A. sues by and through her guardian ad litem, 

who is her mother, Alma Ramirez. L.A. sues in her individual capacity for her own 

damages and for survival damages in her capacity as successor in interest to her father, 

DECEDENT. L.A. seeks wrongful death and survival damages under federal and state 

law.

Case 5:17-cv-00625-VKD Document 1 Filed 02/07/17 Page 2 of 25
- 3 - 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

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

5. At all relevant times, Defendant CITY OF GILROY (“CITY”) is and was

a duly organized public entity existing under the laws of the State of California. At all 

relevant times, CITY was the employer of Defendants ADAM MOON (“MOON”), an 

individual, and DOES 1-10. CITY is liable for the nonfeasance and malfeasance of 

MOON and DOES 1-10 for Plaintiffs’ state law claims pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code § 

815.2(a) (“A public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission 

of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment if the act or 

omission would, apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of action against 

that employee or his personal representative.”). CITY is directly liable for Plaintiffs’

claims under federal law pursuant to Monell and its progeny. 

6. At all relevant times, Defendant MOON was and is an officer working for

the City of Gilroy Police Department. At all relevant times, MOON was acting under 

color of law within the course and scope of his employment with the City of Gilroy 

Police Department. At all relevant times, MOON was acting with the complete 

authority and ratification of his principal, Defendant CITY.

7. At all relevant times, Defendants DOES 1-5 (“DOE OFFICERS”) were

police officers working for the City of Gilroy Police Department. DOE OFFICERS

were acting under color of law within the course and scope of their employment with 

the CITY, including the City of Gilroy Police Department. DOE OFFICERS were 

acting with the complete authority and ratification of their principal, Defendant CITY.

8. At all relevant times, Defendants DOES 6-10 (“SUPERVISORY DOES”)

were and are managerial, supervisorial, and policymaking employees of the City of 

Gilroy Police Department, who were acting under color of law within the course and 

scope of their employment. SUPERVISORY DOES were acting with the complete 

authority and ratification of their principal, Defendant CITY.

9. On information and belief, MOON and DOES 1-10 are residents of the

CITY.

Case 5:17-cv-00625-VKD Document 1 Filed 02/07/17 Page 3 of 25
- 4 - 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

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

10. In doing the acts and failing and omitting to act as hereinafter described,

Defendants MOON and DOES 1-10 were acting on the implied and actual permission 

and consent of CITY.

11. At all times mentioned herein, each and every defendant was the agent of

each and every other defendant and had the legal duty to oversee and supervise the 

hiring, conduct and employment of each and every defendant.

12. The true names of defendants DOES 1-10, inclusive, are unknown to

Plaintiffs at this time, who therefore sue these defendants by such fictitious names. 

Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend this complaint to show the true names and 

capacities of these defendants when they have been ascertained. Each of the fictitious 

named defendants is responsible in some manner for the conduct and liabilities alleged 

herein. 

13. On June 1, 2016 Plaintiffs filed comprehensive and timely claims for

damages with the CITY pursuant to applicable sections of the California Government 

Code.

14. Having received no written rejection of their claims, Plaintiffs’ claims are

deemed rejected by operation of law.

15. Plaintiffs were financially dependent upon DECEDENT, to some extent,

for the necessities of life. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

under the laws of the State of California and of constitutional rights protected by 42 

U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, 1988, and the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments 

to the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction is founded on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1334, 

and 1367.

Case 5:17-cv-00625-VKD Document 1 Filed 02/07/17 Page 4 of 25
- 5 -

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

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

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

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

action occurred in the County of Santa Clara, California. 

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

18. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 

through 17 of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.

19. On December 14, 2015, DECEDENT went to visit his fiancée Alma 

Ramirez at her apartment, located in the 6800 block of Filbro Drive in the City of 

Gilroy and the County of Santa Clara. Ms. Flores had offered to lend her car to 

DECEDENT, and the purpose of DECEDENT’s visit was to borrow Ms. Flores’ car. 

When DECEDENT arrived at Ms. Flores’ apartment, he attempted to hug Ms. Flores, 

and she pulled away from him and asked him to leave in a loud voice. According to 

Ms. Flores, verbal argument ensued, but DECEDENT did not physically injure or 

attempt to injure Ms. Flores. 

20. One of Ms. Flores’ neighbors overheard the argument between 

DECEDENT and Ms. Flores and placed a 911 call. Defendant MOON responded to 

this family disturbance call at the apartment complex where Ms. Flores lived. At the 

time that MOON responded, he had no information that DECEDENT had a weapon; in 

fact, DECEDENT was unarmed during the entirety of this incident. When MOON 

arrived on scene, he observed DECEDENT walking down a flight of stairs away from 

Ms. Flores’ apartment. MOON commanded DECEDENT to put his hands up multiple 

times, and DECEDENT complied with at least one of the commands by raising his 

arms and hands to shoulder height. 

21. DECEDENT did not physically threaten or verbally threaten MOON. 

MOON never saw DECEDENT with a weapon or with anything that looked like a 

Case 5:17-cv-00625-VKD Document 1 Filed 02/07/17 Page 5 of 25
- 6 -

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

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

weapon. MOON never saw or heard DECEDENT injure anyone or threaten to injure 

anyone. 

22. MOON fired his weapon at DECEDENT four times without first issuing a 

warning. This use of force was excessive and unreasonable, especially because 

DECEDENT posed no immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury to MOON or 

to anyone else. Three of MOON’s shots struck DECEDENT. DECEDENT suffered 

two gunshot wounds to the chest and one gunshot wound to the left arm. Two of 

MOON’s bullets struck the doorframe of a first-floor apartment, and one of his bullets 

travelled into that apartment, demonstrating MOON’s disregard for his background 

when shooting. 

23. After being shot, DECEDENT was immobile, bleeding profusely, and in 

obvious and critical need of emergency medical care and treatment. Defendants did 

not timely summon medical care or permit medical personnel to treat DECEDENT 

immediately. The delay of medical care to DECEDENT caused him extreme physical 

and emotional pain and suffering and contributed to his damages. DECEDENT

succumbed to his wounds and eventually died at the scene, losing his life and earning 

capacity.

24. At the time of this incident, DECEDENT was a 19-year old father of one 

child, Plaintiff L.A., and was awaiting the birth of his second child, Plaintiff H.A.

Plaintiffs H.A. and L.A. are DECEDENT’s successors-in-interest as defined in Section 

377.11 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and succeed to DECEDENT’s 

interest in this action as the natural children of DECEDENT.

//

//

//

//

Case 5:17-cv-00625-VKD Document 1 Filed 02/07/17 Page 6 of 25
- 7 -

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

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 CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Fourth Amendment—Detention and Arrest (42 U.S.C. §1983)

(By Plaintiffs A.H. and L.A. against Defendant MOON)

25. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 

through 24 of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.

26. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees all 

persons the right to be free from unreasonable detention in violation of their right to 

privacy. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a private right of action for conduct which 

violates this right.

27. Defendant MOON did not observe DECEDENT commit any crime, nor 

did Defendant MOON have any information that DECEDENT was armed. When 

MOON approached DECEDENT, DECEDENT was leaving the apartment complex.

28. When Defendant MOON trained his gun on DECEDENT, held him at 

gunpoint, shot him and, on information and belief, handcuffed him, he violated 

DECEDENT’s right to be secure in his person against unreasonable searches and 

seizures as guaranteed to him under the Fourth Amendment to the United States 

Constitution and applied to state actors by the Fourteenth Amendment.

29. The conduct of Defendant MOON violated DECEDENT’s right to be free 

from unreasonable search and seizure, which is guaranteed to him by the Fourth 

Amendment to the United States Constitution and applied to state actors by the 

Fourteenth Amendment.

30. As a result of his misconduct, Defendant MOON is liable for 

DECEDENT’s injuries.

31. The conduct of Defendant MOON in unreasonably detaining and arresting 

DECEDENT (up to and including the shooting and subsequent handcuffing) was 

malicious, oppressive and in reckless disregard for the rights and safety of 

Case 5:17-cv-00625-VKD Document 1 Filed 02/07/17 Page 7 of 25
- 8 -

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

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

DECEDENT and warrants the imposition of exemplary and punitive damages as to

Defendant MOON.

32. Plaintiffs H.A. and L.A. bring this claim in each case as a successor-ininterest to the DECEDENT, and seek both survival and wrongful death damages for 

the violation of DECEDENT’s rights. Plaintiffs also seek funeral and burial expenses, 

punitive damgages, attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and costs of suit.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Fourth Amendment—Excessive Force (42 U.S.C. §1983)

(By Plaintiffs H.A. and L.A. against Defendant MOON)

33. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 

through 32 of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.

34. Defendant MOON used excessive force against DECEDENT when he 

shot him multiple times without warning. Defendant MOON’s unjustified shooting 

deprived DECEDENT of his right to be secure in his person against unreasonable 

searches and seizures as guaranteed to DECEDENT under the Fourth Amendment to 

the United States Constitution and applied to state actors by the Fourteenth 

Amendment. 

35. As a result of the foregoing, DECEDENT suffered great physical pain and 

emotional distress up to the time of his death, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of life, and 

loss of earning capacity. 

36. The conduct of Defendant MOON was willful, wanton, malicious, and 

done with reckless disregard for the rights and safety of DECEDENT, and therefore 

warrants the imposition of exemplary and punitive damages as to Defendant MOON. 

37. The shooting was excessive and unreasonable, especially because 

DECEDENT posed no immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury at the time of 

Case 5:17-cv-00625-VKD Document 1 Filed 02/07/17 Page 8 of 25
- 9 -

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

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 shooting. Further, Defendant MOON’s use of deadly force violated his training 

and standard police officer training.

38. Plaintiffs H.A. and L.A. bring this claim in each case as a successor-ininterest to the DECEDENT, and seek both survival and wrongful death damages for 

the violation of DECEDENT’s rights. Plaintiffs also seek funeral and burial expenses, 

punitive damgages, attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and costs of suit.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Fourth Amendment—Denial of Medical Care (42 U.S.C. §1983)

(By Plaintiffs H.A. and L.A. against Defendants ADAM MOON and DOE 

OFFICERS)

39. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 

through 38 of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.

40. The denial of medical care by Defendants MOON and DOE OFFICERS 

deprived DECEDENT of his right to be secure in his person against unreasonable 

searches and seizures as guaranteed to DECEDENT under the Fourth Amendment to 

the United States Constitution and applied to state actors by the Fourteenth 

Amendment.

41. As a result of the foregoing, DECEDENT suffered great physical pain and 

emotional distress up to the time of his death, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of life, and 

loss of earning capacity. 

42. Defendants MOON and DOE OFFICERS knew that failure to provide 

timely medical treatment to DECEDENT could result in further significant injury or 

the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain, but disregarded that serious medical 

need, causing DECEDENT great bodily harm and death.

43. The conduct of MOON and DOE OFFICERS was willful, wanton, 

malicious, and done with reckless disregard for the rights and safety of DECEDENT 

Case 5:17-cv-00625-VKD Document 1 Filed 02/07/17 Page 9 of 25
- 10 -

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

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

and therefore warrants the imposition of exemplary and punitive damages as to 

Defendants MOON and DOE OFFICERS. 

44. As a result of their misconduct in denying DECEDENT timely medical 

care, Defendants MOON and DOE OFFICERS are liable for DECEDENT’s injuries, 

either because they were integral participants in the wrongful detention and arrest, or 

because they failed to intervene to prevent these violations.

45. Plaintiffs H.A. and L.A. bring this claim in each case as a successor-ininterest to the DECEDENT, and seek both survival and wrongful death damages for 

the violation of DECEDENT’s rights. Plaintiffs also seek funeral and burial expenses, 

punitive damgages, attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and costs of suit.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

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

(By all Plaintiffs against Defendant MOON)

46. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 

through 45 of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.

47. The substantive due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the 

United States Constitution guarantees all persons the right to be free from unlawful 

state interference with their familial relations. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a private 

right of action for conduct which violates this right.

48. Plaintiff RAMIREZ had a cognizable interest under the Due Process 

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution to be free from 

state actions that deprive her of life, liberty, or property in such a manner as to shock 

the conscience, including but not limited to unwarranted state interference in Plaintiff’s 

familial relationship with her son, DECEDENT.

Case 5:17-cv-00625-VKD Document 1 Filed 02/07/17 Page 10 of 25
- 11 -

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

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

49. Plaintiff H.A. had a cognizable interest under the Due Process Clause of 

the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution to be free from state 

actions that deprive him of life, liberty, or property in such a manner as to shock the 

conscience, including but not limited to unwarranted state interference in Plaintiff’s 

familial relationship with his father, DECEDENT.

50. Plaintiff L.A. had a cognizable interest under the Due Process Clause of 

the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution to be free from state 

actions that deprive her of life, liberty, or property in such a manner as to shock the 

conscience, including but not limited to unwarranted state interference in Plaintiff’s 

familial relationship with her father, DECEDENT.

51. DECEDENT had had a cognizable interest under the Due Process Clause 

of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution to be free from state 

actions that deprive him of life, liberty, or property in such a manner as to shock the 

conscience.

52. The aforementioned actions of MOON, along with other undiscovered 

conduct, shock the conscience, in that they acted with deliberate indifference to the 

constitutional rights of DECEDENT and Plaintiffs, and with purpose to harm unrelated 

to any legitimate law enforcement objective.

53. As a direct and proximate result of these actions, DECEDENT 

experienced pain and suffering and eventually died. MOON thus violated the 

substantive due process rights of Plaintiffs to be free from unwarranted interference 

with their familial relationship with DECEDENT.

54. As a direct and proximate cause of the acts of MOON, Plaintiffs suffered 

emotional distress, mental anguish, and pain. Plaintiffs have also been deprived of the 

life-long love, companionship, comfort, support, including financial support, society, 

care, and sustenance of DECEDENT, and will continue to be so deprived for the 

remainder of their natural lives. 

Case 5:17-cv-00625-VKD Document 1 Filed 02/07/17 Page 11 of 25
- 12 -

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

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

55. The conduct of MOON was willful, wanton, malicious, and done with 

reckless disregard for the rights and safety of DECEDENT and Plaintiffs and therefore 

warrants the imposition of exemplary and punitive damages as to Defendant MOON.

56. Plaintiff RAMIREZ brings this claim in her individual capacity and seeks

wrongful death damages under this claim. Plaintiffs H.A. and L.A. bring this claim in 

each case individually and as a successor-in-interest to the DECEDENT, and seek both 

survival and wrongful death damages for the violation of DECEDENT’s rights. 

Plaintiffs also seek funeral and burial expenses, punitive damgages, attorney’s fees 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and costs of suit.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Municipal Liability—Ratification (42 U.S.C. §1983)

(By Plaintiffs H.A. and L.A. against Defendants CITY and SUPERVISORY 

DOES)

57. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 

through 56 of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.

58. Defendant MOON acted under color of law.

59. The acts of Defendants MOON deprived Plaintiffs and DECEDENT of 

their particular rights under the United States Constitution.

60. Upon information and belief, a final policymaker, acting under color of 

law, who had final policymaking authority concerning the acts of Defendant MOON, 

ratified (or will ratify) Defendant MOON’s acts and the bases for them. Upon 

information and belief, the final policymaker knew of and specifically approved of (or 

will specifically approve of) the acts of Defendant MOON.

61. Upon information and belief, a final policymaker has determined (or will 

determine) that the acts of Defendant MOON was “within policy.” 

Case 5:17-cv-00625-VKD Document 1 Filed 02/07/17 Page 12 of 25
- 13 -

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

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

62. Plaintiffs H.A. and L.A. bring this claim in each case as a successor-ininterest to the DECEDENT, and seek both survival and wrongful death damages for 

the violation of DECEDENT’s rights. Plaintiffs also seek funeral and burial expenses, 

punitive damgages, attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and costs of suit.

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Municipal Liability – Failure to Train (42 U.S.C. §1983)

(Against Defendant CITY and SUPERVISORY DOES)

63. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 

through 62 of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.

64. Defendant MOON acted under color of law.

65. The acts of Defendant MOON deprived Plaintiffs of their particular rights 

under the United States Constitution.

66. The training policies of Defendant CITY were not adequate to train its 

police officers to handle the usual and recurring situations with which they must deal.

67. Defendant CITY was deliberately indifferent to the obvious consequences 

of its failure to train its officers adequately. Specifically, the CITY failed to 

adequately train its officers with regard to the use of unreasonable and excessive force, 

particularly deadly force, and the immediate need to use deadly force.

68. The failure of Defendant CITY to provide adequate training caused the 

deprivation of the Plaintiffs’ rights by Defendant MOON; that is, Defendant CITY’s 

failure to train is so closely related to the deprivation of DECEDENT’s and Plaintiffs’ 

rights as to be the moving force that caused the ultimate injury.

69. By reason of the aforementioned acts and omissions, DECEDENT

suffered serious bodily injury, emotional distress, a loss of life, and a loss of earning 

capacity. The aforementioned acts and omissions also caused Plaintiffs RAMIREZ, 

H.A., and L.A. severe emotional distress and financial loss as a result of the loss of 

Case 5:17-cv-00625-VKD Document 1 Filed 02/07/17 Page 13 of 25
- 14 -

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

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

their father and son, Hector Alvarez. Accordingly, Defendant CITY is liable to 

Plaintiffs for compensatory damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

70. Plaintiffs H.A. and L.A. bring this claim in each case as a successor-ininterest to the DECEDENT, and seek both survival and wrongful death damages for 

the violation of DECEDENT’s rights. Plaintiffs also seek funeral and burial expenses, 

punitive damgages, attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and costs of suit.

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Municipal Liability—Unconstitutional Custom or Policy (42 U.S.C. §1983)

(By Plaintiffs L.A. and H.A. against Defendants CITY and SUPERVISORY 

DOES)

71. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 

through 70 of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.

72. Defendant MOON acted under color of law.

73. Defendant MOON acted pursuant to an expressly adopted official policy 

or a longstanding practice or custom of the Defendant CITY.

74. On information and belief, Defendant MOON was not disciplined, 

reprimanded, retrained, suspended, or otherwise penalized in connection with the 

shooting of DECEDENT.

75. Defendants CITY and DOES 6-10, together with other CITY

policymakers and supervisors, maintained, inter alia, the following unconstitutional 

customs, practices, and policies: 

a) Using excessive force, including excessive deadly force;

b) Providing inadequate training regarding the use of deadly force;

c) Employing and retaining as police officers individuals such as 

Defendant MOON, whom Defendant CITY at all times material 

Case 5:17-cv-00625-VKD Document 1 Filed 02/07/17 Page 14 of 25
- 15 -

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

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

herein knew or reasonably should have known had dangerous 

propensities for abusing their authority and for using excessive 

force;

d) Inadequately supervising, training, controlling, assigning, and 

disciplining CITY police officers, and other personnel, including 

Defendants MOON, whom Defendant CITY knew or in the 

exercise of reasonable care should have known had the 

aforementioned propensities and character traits;

e) Maintaining grossly inadequate procedures for reporting, 

supervising, investigating, reviewing, disciplining and controlling 

misconduct by CITY police officers, including Defendant MOON;

f) Failing to adequately discipline CITY police officers for the abovereferenced categories of misconduct, including “slaps on the wrist,” 

discipline that is so slight as to be out of proportion to the 

magnitude of the misconduct, and other inadequate discipline that 

is tantamount to encouraging misconduct;

g) Announcing that unjustified shootings are “within policy,” 

including shootings that were later determined in court to be 

unconstitutional;

h) Even where shootings are determined in court to be 

unconstitutional, refusing to discipline, terminate, or retrain the 

officers involved;

i) Encouraging, accommodating, or facilitating a “blue code of 

silence,” “blue shield,” “blue wall,” “blue curtain,” “blue veil,” or 

simply “code of silence,” pursuant to which police officers do not 

report other officers’ errors, misconduct, or crimes. Pursuant to this 

code of silence, if questioned about an incident of misconduct 

Case 5:17-cv-00625-VKD Document 1 Filed 02/07/17 Page 15 of 25
- 16 -

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

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

involving another officer, while following the code, the officer 

being questioned will claim ignorance of the other officers’

wrongdoing.

j) Maintaining a policy of inaction and an attitude of indifference 

towards soaring numbers of police shootings, including by failing 

to discipline, retrain, investigate, terminate, and recommend 

officers for criminal prosecution who participate in shootings of 

unarmed people.

76. By reason of the aforementioned acts and omissions, DECEDENT 

suffered serious bodily injury, emotional distress, and a loss of earning capacity. The 

aforementioned acts and omissions also caused Plaintiffs to suffer emotional distress as 

a result of the loss of their father and son. 

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

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

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

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

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

deliberate indifference to the foreseeable effects and consequences of these policies 

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

situated.

78. By perpetrating, sanctioning, tolerating and ratifying the outrageous 

conduct and other wrongful acts, MOON acted with intentional, reckless, and callous 

disregard for the life of DECEDENT’s and Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. 

Furthermore, the policies, practices, and customs implemented, maintained, and still 

tolerated by Defendant CITY was affirmatively linked to and were a significantly 

influential force behind the injuries of DECEDENT and Plaintiffs.

79. The aforementioned unconstitutional customs, practices, and polices, in 

Case 5:17-cv-00625-VKD Document 1 Filed 02/07/17 Page 16 of 25
- 17 -

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

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

addition to the ratification of the deficient customs, practices, and policies, are 

evidenced by the number of prior shootings, which constituted excessive force, 

involving police officers working for the CITY OF GILROY Police Department. 

80. Plaintiffs H.A. and L.A. bring this claim in each case as a successor-ininterest to the DECEDENT, and seek both survival and wrongful death damages for 

the violation of DECEDENT’s rights. Plaintiff RAMIREZ brings this claim 

individually based on her financial dependancy on DECEDENT and seeks wrongful 

death damages for the violation of DECEDENT’s rights. Plaintiffs also seek funeral 

and burial expenses, punitive damgages, attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 

and costs of suit.

EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

False Arrest/False Imprisonment

(By All Plaintiffs against Defendant MOON)

81. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 

through 80 of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.

82. Defendant MOON, while working a police officer for the CITY and 

acting within the course and scope of his employment, intentionally deprived 

DECEDENT of his freedom of movement by use of force, threats of force, menace, 

fraud, deceit, and unreasonable duress. Defendant MOON detained DECEDENT 

without reasonable suspicion and, on information and belief, arrested him without 

probable cause.

83. DECEDENT did not knowingly or voluntarily consent.

84. The conduct of Defendant MOON was a substantial factor in causing the 

harm to DECEDENT and Plaintiffs.

Case 5:17-cv-00625-VKD Document 1 Filed 02/07/17 Page 17 of 25
- 18 -

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

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

85. Defendant CITY is vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of Defendant 

MOON pursuant to section 815.2(a) of the California Government Code, which 

provides that a public entity is liable for the injuries caused by its employees within the 

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

86. The conduct of Defendant MOON was malicious, wanton, oppressive, 

and accomplished with a conscious disregard for the rights of Plaintiffs, entitling 

Plaintiffs to an award of exemplary and punitive damages.

87. As a result of his misconduct, Defendant MOON is liable for Plaintiffs’

injuries.

88. Plaintiffs H.A. and L.A. bring this claim in each case as a successor-ininterest to the DECEDENT, and seek both survival and wrongful death damages for 

the violation of DECEDENT’s rights. Plaintiff RAMIREZ brings this claim 

individually based on her financial dependancy on DECEDENT and seeks wrongful 

death damages for the violation of DECEDENT’s rights. Plaintiffs also seek funeral 

and burial expenses, punitive damgages, attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 

and costs of suit.

NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Battery (Cal. Govt. Code §820 and California Common Law)

(Wrongful Death)

(By all Plaintiffs against Defendant MOON)

89. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 

through 88 of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.

90. Defendant MOON, while working as a CITY Police Officer and acting 

within the course and scope of his duties, intentionally shot DECEDENT multiple 

times. The shooting constituted the requisite “touching” element, as well as a use of 

Case 5:17-cv-00625-VKD Document 1 Filed 02/07/17 Page 18 of 25
- 19 -

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

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

unreasonable force against DECEDENT to which DECEDENT did not consent. As a 

result of the actions of Defendant MOON DECEDENT suffered severe pain and 

suffering and ultimately died from his injuries and lost earning capacity. Defendant 

MOON had no legal justification for using force against DECEDENT, and MOON’s

use of force was unreasonable.

91. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct as alleged above, 

Plaintiffs have been deprived of the life-long love, companionship, comfort, support, 

society, care, and sustenance of DECEDENT, and will continue to be so deprived for 

the remainder of their natural lives. 

92. CITY is vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of the individual 

defendants pursuant to section 815.2(a) of the California Government Code, which 

provides that a public entity is liable for the injuries caused by its employees within the 

scope of the employment if the employee’s acts would subject him or her to liability.

93. The conduct of Defendants was malicious, wanton, oppressive, and 

accomplished with a conscious disregard for the rights of Plaintiffs and DECEDENT, 

entitling Plaintiffs, individually, to an award of exemplary and punitive damages.

94. Plaintiffs H.A. and L.A. bring this claim in each case as a successor-ininterest to the DECEDENT, and seek both survival and wrongful death damages for

the violation of DECEDENT’s rights. Plaintiff RAMIREZ brings this claim in her 

individual capacity and seeks wrongful death damages. Plaintiffs also seek funeral and 

burial expenses, punitive damgages, attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and 

costs of suit.

Case 5:17-cv-00625-VKD Document 1 Filed 02/07/17 Page 19 of 25
- 20 -

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

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

TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Negligence (Cal. Govt. Code §820 and California Common Law)

(Wrongful Death)

(By all Plaintiffs against all Defendants)

95. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 

through 94 of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.

96. Police officers, including Defendants, have a duty to use reasonable care 

to prevent harm or injury to others. This duty includes using appropriate tactics, giving 

appropriate commands, giving warnings, and not using any force unless necessary, 

using less than lethal options, and only using deadly force as a last resort.

97. Defendants DOES 1-10 breached this duty of care. Upon information 

and belief, the actions and inactions of Defendants MOON and DOES 1-10 were 

negligent and reckless, including but not limited to:

a) the failure to properly and adequately assess the need to stop, 

detain, seize, arrest and/or use force or deadly force against 

DECEDENT;

b) the negligent pre-shooting tactics and handling of the situation with 

DECEDENT;

c) the negligent detention, arrest, and use of force, including deadly 

force, against DECEDENT;

d) the failure to provide prompt medical care to DECEDENT;

e)

f) the failure to properly train and supervise employees, both 

professional and non-professional, including Defendants ADAM 

MOON and DOES 1-10;

Case 5:17-cv-00625-VKD Document 1 Filed 02/07/17 Page 20 of 25
- 21 - 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

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

g) the failure to ensure that adequate numbers of employees with

appropriate education and training were available to meet the needs

of and protect the rights of scenarios that CITY Police Department

officers would frequently and routinely encounter, such as this

encounter with DECEDENT;

h) failure to ensure that adequate numbers of employees with

appropriate education and training were available to meet the needs

of and protect the rights of DECEDENT;

i) the negligent handling of evidence and witnesses;

j) the negligent communication of information during the incident;

98. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct as alleged above,

and other undiscovered negligent conduct, DECEDENT was caused to suffer severe 

pain and suffering and ultimately died and lost his earning capacity. Also as a direct 

and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct as alleged above, Plaintiffs suffered 

extreme and severe mental anguish and pain and have been injured in mind and body. 

Plaintiffs have also been deprived of the life-long love, companionship, comfort, 

society, care, and sustenance of DECEDENT, and will continue to be so deprived for 

the remainder of their natural lives.

99. CITY is vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of Defendants MOON

and DOES 1-10, inclusive, pursuant to section 815.2(a) of the California Government 

Code, which provides that a public entity is liable for the injuries caused by its 

employees within the scope of the employment if the employee’s act would subject 

him or her to liability. 

100. Plaintiffs H.A. and L.A. bring this claim in each case individually and as a 

successor-in-interest to the DECEDENT, and seek both survival and wrongful death 

damages for the violation of DECEDENT’s rights. Plaintiff RAMIREZ brings this 

claim in her individual capacity and seeks wrongful death damages. Plaintiffs also 

Case 5:17-cv-00625-VKD Document 1 Filed 02/07/17 Page 21 of 25
- 22 - 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

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

seek funeral and burial expenses, attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and 

costs of suit under this claim. 

ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Violation of Cal. Civ. Code §52.1 and California Common Law

(By all Plaintiffs against Defendants MOON) 

101. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 

through 100 of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth 

herein. 

102. The California Civil Code, Section 52.1(b) authorizes a private right of 

action for damages to any person whose constitutional rights are violated. Moreover, 

“a successful claim for excessive force under the Fourth Amendment provides the 

basis for a successful claim under § 52.1.” Chaudhry v. City of Los Angeles, 751 F.3d 

1096, 1105-06 (9th Cir. 2014); citing Cameron v. Craig, 713 F.3d 1012, 1022 (9th 

Cir.2013) (“[T]he elements of the excessive force claim under § 52.1 are the same as 

under § 1983.”); Bender v. Cnty. of L.A., 217 Cal. App. 4th 968, 976 (2013) (“an 

unlawful [seizure]—when accompanied by unnecessary, deliberate and excessive 

force—is [] within the protection of the Bane Act”). 

103. Defendant MOON violated DECEDENT’s Fourth Amendment rights to 

be free from unreasonable seizures when they detained him and used deadly force 

against him without any warning and by firing multiple rounds at him and killing him. 

There was no confirmation that DECEDENT had committed any crime, and MOON

had no information that DECEDENT committed any crime that warranted their use of 

the highest level of force and most severe deprivation of liberty possible—deadly 

force. At the time of the shots, DECEDENT was not threatening or attempting to harm 

anyone, and DECEDENT was unarmed during the entirety of this incident. 

Case 5:17-cv-00625-VKD Document 1 Filed 02/07/17 Page 22 of 25
- 23 - 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

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

104. The conduct of Defendant MOON was a substantial factor in causing the 

harm, losses, injuries, and damages of DECEDENT. As a result of the unjustified 

shooting, DECEDENT was caused to suffer severe pain and suffering and ultimately 

died for which he, through Plaintiffs H.A. and L.A., as his successors in interest, is 

entitled to recover survival damages. 

105. CITY is vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of Defendant MOON and 

pursuant to section 815.2(a) of the California Government Code, which provides that a 

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

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

106. The conduct of Defendant MOON was malicious, wanton, oppressive, 

and accomplished with a conscious disregard for the rights of DECEDENT, entitling 

Plaintiffs to an award of exemplary and punitive damages.

107. Plaintiffs H.A. and L.A. bring this claim in each case as a successor-ininterest to the DECEDENT, and seek both survival and wrongful death damages for 

the violation of DECEDENT’s rights. Plaintiff RAMIREZ brings this claim 

individually based on her financial dependancy on DECEDENT and seeks wrongful 

death damages for the violation of DECEDENT’s rights. Plaintiffs also seek funeral 

and burial expenses, punitive damgages, attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 

and costs of suit.

Case 5:17-cv-00625-VKD Document 1 Filed 02/07/17 Page 23 of 25
- 24 - 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

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

PRAYER FOR DAMAGES

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs ALMA RAMIREZ, H.A. and L.A., by and request 

entry of judgment in their favor and against Defendants CITY OF GILROY, ADAM 

MOON, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, as follows:

A. For compensatory damages, including both survival damages and wrongful 

death damages under federal and state law in an amount to be proven at trial;

B. For funeral and burial expenses and loss of financial support;

C. For punitive damages against the individual defendants ADAM MOON and 

DOES 1-10 in an amount to be proven at trial;

D. For interest;

E. For reasonable costs of this suit and attorney’s fees under state and federal 

law; 

F. For such further relief at law or equity as the Court or jury may deem just and 

appropriate.

DATED: LAW OFFICES OF DALE K. GALIPO

MORALES & LEANOS

___________________________________ Dale K. Galipo

Jaime A. Leanos

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

February 6, 2017

s/Dale K. Galipo

Case 5:17-cv-00625-VKD Document 1 Filed 02/07/17 Page 24 of 25
- 25 - 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

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

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury.

DATED: LAW OFFICES OF DALE K. GALIPO

MORALES & LEANOS 

__________________________________ Dale K. Galipo

Jaime A. Leanos 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

February 6, 2017

s/ Dale K. Galipo

Case 5:17-cv-00625-VKD Document 1 Filed 02/07/17 Page 25 of 25