Leonard R. Berman

4711 SW Huber St., Suite E-3

Portland, OR 97219

(503) 473-8787

OSB # 96040

Easyrabbi@yahoo.com

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF(S)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Portland Division

____________________________________

:

WILLIAM DILLON, SCOTT GRAUE , : Case No. 3:14-CV-820

DAVID HODGES, Individually, on behalf :

 of a class of others similarly situated, :

: CLASS ACTION 

: COMPLAINT

Plaintiff(s), : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

:

:

:

v. :

:

CLACKAMAS COUNTY, :

CRAIG ROBERTS, :

both individually and in his :

official capacity as Sheriff, :

:

Defendants. :

____________________________________: 

/

/

/

INTRODUCTION

This is a class action brought to redress the deprivation by Defendants of rights

secured to the Plaintiff William Dillon and scott Graue and the proposed Class Members

1 COMPLAINT

Case 3:14-cv-00820-ST Document 1 Filed 05/18/14 Page 1 of 20 Page ID#: 1
by the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, the

Fourth And Eighth Amendments and the Oregon Constitution, Article 1 Sec. 9

-Unreasonable Search and Seizure and Sec. 16- Cruel and Unusual Punishment. For at

least the past two years, Clackamas County (hereinafter, “CC”) has had a policy of stripsearching inmates in public and in public and group settings with closed circuit cameras

in view in violation of the ABA Standard 23-7.9 Searches of prisoners’ bodies and OAR

291-041-0020 Inmates (infra) for random searches, after court hearings, and during

routine searches as well as one mass search of 160 inmates on or about October 10, 2012.

These group and public strip searches have been conducted in the hallways and open

areas in the Clackamas County Jail (hereinafter “CCJ”) on a daily basis since May 21,

2012. No pat-downs occur. Other corrections facilities do pat-down searches and only

conduct strip searches when reasonable suspicion arises from a pat-down and in private,

individually. On or about October 10, 2012, several dozen inmates up to 160 or more

were pulled out of their cells in pairs by deputies in camouflage commando gear and

publicly strip searched. Upon information and belief, this strip search practice derived

from the custom, practices and/or written procedures of the aforementioned County

Departments, and was promulgated by senior Department officials.

With this as a background, Plaintiff William Dillon, Scott Graue, and david

Hodges individually, by and through counsel, hereby complains as follows:

JURISDICTION

1. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1331, 1341 & 1343 because it is filed to obtain compensatory damages, punitive

damages, and injunctive relief for the deprivation, under color of state law, of the rights

2 COMPLAINT

Case 3:14-cv-00820-ST Document 1 Filed 05/18/14 Page 2 of 20 Page ID#: 2
of citizens of the United States secured by the Constitution and federal law pursuant to 42

U.S.C. §§ 1981 & 1983. This Court also has jurisdiction over this action under the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2201, as it is filed to obtain declaratory relief relative to the

Constitutionality of the policies of a local government.

2. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(2) because the events giving rise to

Plaintiffs’ claims and those of proposed class members occurred in this judicial district.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff Scott Graue resides in Clackamas County, Oregon, Dillon and

Hodges live in other counties. 

4. Defendant Clackamas County (hereinafter,“CC”) is a county government

organized and existing under the laws of the State of Oregon. At all times relevant

hereto, the County, acting through its Corrections Department, was responsible for the

policies, practices, supervision, implementation and conduct of all matters pertaining to

the MCIJ and was responsible for the appointment, training, supervision and conduct of

all Department personnel. In addition, at all relevant times, the County was responsible

for enforcing the rules of the CCJ, and for ensuring the personnel employed in the CCJ

followed the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the State of Oregon.

5. Defendant Craig Roberts is the sheriff and final decision-maker and policy

makers with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the CCJ

exercises custodial or other control. 

3 COMPLAINT

Case 3:14-cv-00820-ST Document 1 Filed 05/18/14 Page 3 of 20 Page ID#: 3
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

6. Plaintiff bring this action pursuant to Rules 23(b)(1), 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly

situated individuals who were strip searched in public and group settings.

7. The classes that Plaintiffs seek to represent are defined as follows:

Class One

All persons who have been or will be placed into the custody of the CCJ

regardless of charges, while unclothed in a group and public setting in open

areas involving one or more deputy who:

A. Inspects the individual from top to bottom;

B. Inspects his hair, ears, mouth, hands, armpits, feet,

between toes, nostrils;

C. Inspects a woman’s breasts or tells a man to separate

his penis and testicles;

D. Inspects beneath the foreskin of an uncircumcised

male;

E. Requires the individual to bend and spread buttocks;

F. Requires the individual to face a wall so staff can

inspect the back of the body;

The class period commences on May 19, 2012 and extends to the

date on which Clackamas County (CC) is enjoined from, or

otherwise ceases, enforcing their unconstitutional policy, practice

and custom of conducting group and public strip searches after

court hearings, on routine schedules and/or on a random basis.

Specifically excluded from the class are Defendants and any and all

of their respective affiliates, legal representatives, heirs, successors,

employees or assignees. 

CLASS TWO

All persons who have been or will be placed into the custody of the CCJ

regardless of charges, while unclothed in a group and public setting in open

areas involving one or more deputy who:

4 COMPLAINT

Case 3:14-cv-00820-ST Document 1 Filed 05/18/14 Page 4 of 20 Page ID#: 4
G. Inspects the individual from top to bottom;

H. Inspects his hair, ears, mouth, hands, armpits, feet,

between toes, nostrils;

I. Inspects a woman’s breasts or tells a man to separate

his penis and testicles;

J. Inspects beneath the foreskin of an uncircumcised

male;

K. Requires the individual to bend and spread buttocks;

L. Requires the individual to face a wall so staff can

inspect the back of the body;

The class period pertains to a one-time public search of at least 160

inmates on or about October 10, 2012 and the class commences on

May 19, 2012 and extends to the date on which Clackamas County

is enjoined from, or otherwise ceases, enforcing their

unconstitutional policy, practice and custom of conducting such

strip searches. Specifically excluded from the class are Defendants

and any and all of their respective affiliates, legal representatives,

heirs, successors, employees or assignees. 

8. This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a class action

under Federal law and satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy

requirements for maintaining a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).

9. The members of the class are so numerous as to render joinder impracticable.

Upon information and belief, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of people arrested

who are placed into the custody of CC every month – all of whom are members of the

proposed class. Upon information and belief, the size of the proposed class totals at least

2,000 individuals.

10. Upon information and belief, joinder of all of these individuals is

impracticable because of the large number of class members and the fact that class

members are likely dispersed over a large geographical area, with some members

presently residing outside of the County and this Judicial District. Furthermore, upon

5 COMPLAINT

Case 3:14-cv-00820-ST Document 1 Filed 05/18/14 Page 5 of 20 Page ID#: 5
information and belief, many members of the class are low-income persons, may not

speak English, and likely would have great difficulty in pursuing their rights individually.

11. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class, in that

they all had their right to be free from unreasonable searches violated by Defendants’

conducting strip searches in an unreasonable fashion. All members of the class were

placed into the custody of their CCJ facilities, and all were illegally strip searched in

violation of the clearly established law in this judicial circuit.

12. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class.

Plaintiff and all members of the class sustained damages arising out of Defendants’

course of conduct. The harms suffered by the Plaintiff are typical of the harms suffered

by the class members.

13. The representative Plaintiff (s) have the requisite personal interest in the

outcome of this action and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class.

Plaintiffs have no interests that are adverse to the interests of the members of the Class.

14. Plaintiffs have retained counsel who has substantial experience and success in

the prosecution of civil rights litigation and class action litigation. 

15. Counsel for Plaintiffs know of no conflicts among members of the class, or

between counsel and members of the class.

16. This action, in part, seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. As such, the

Plaintiffs seek class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), in that all class members

were subject to the same policy requiring the illegal strip searches of individuals placed

into the custody of MC and involved in kitchen duty. In short, the aforementioned

6 COMPLAINT

Case 3:14-cv-00820-ST Document 1 Filed 05/18/14 Page 6 of 20 Page ID#: 6
County Departments, the Policy Making Defendants and County Corrections Officers

acted on grounds generally applicable to all class members.

17. In addition to certification under Rule 23(b)(2), and in the alternative, Plaintiff

(s) seek certification under Rule 23(b)(3). 

18. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class, and

predominate over any questions that affect only individual members of the Class. These

common questions of law and fact include, without limitation, the common and

predominate question of whether the Defendants’ written and/or de facto policy/practice

of strip searching in an unreasonable fashion, all individuals committed to the MCIJ is a

violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution,

and whether such a written and/or de facto policy existed during the class period.

19. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient

adjudication of this controversy, since joinder of all of the individual members of the

class is impracticable given the large number of class members and the fact that they are

dispersed over a large geographical area. Furthermore, the expense and burden of

individual litigation would make it difficult or impossible for individual members of the

class to redress the wrongs done to them. The cost to the federal court system of

adjudicating thousands of individual cases would be enormous. Individualized litigation

would also magnify the delay and expense to all parties and the court system. By

contrast, the conduct of this action as a class action in this District presents far fewer

management difficulties, conserves the resources of the parties and the court system, and

protects the rights of each member of the Class.

7 COMPLAINT

Case 3:14-cv-00820-ST Document 1 Filed 05/18/14 Page 7 of 20 Page ID#: 7
20. Upon information and belief, there are no other actions pending to address the

Defendants’ flagrant violation of the civil rights of thousands of individuals, even though

the Defendants have maintained their illegal strip search regimen for the past several

years.

21. In the alternative to certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), Plaintiff(s)

also seek partial certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4).

8 COMPLAINT

Case 3:14-cv-00820-ST Document 1 Filed 05/18/14 Page 8 of 20 Page ID#: 8
FACTS

Facts Applicable to the Class Generally

22. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits state and

county officials, such as the Policy Making Defendant in this action and the Corrections

Officers they supervise, from performing strip searches in an unreasonable fashion on

pre-trial detainees.

23. The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits state and

county officials, such as the Policy Making Defendants in this action and the Corrections

Officers they supervise, from performing strip searches in an unreasonable fashion on

sentenced inmates, as an example of cruel and unusual punishment.

24. Upon information and belief, CC and the Policy Making Defendants have

instituted a written and/or de facto policy, custom or practice of strip searching all

individuals who participate in kitchen duty in the custody of CC (by forcing them to

remove their clothing for a visual inspection of their bodies and/or forcing them to submit

to a visual inspection of their body cavities in a public setting in front of fellow inmates

and other deputies) and are later allowed to dress back into jail clothing. For purposes of

this Complaint, strip and visual cavity searches are collectively referred to as “strip

searches.”

25. The aforementioned CC, and the Policy Making Defendant know that they

may not institute, enforce or permit enforcement of a policy or practice of conducting

strip searches unreasonably. 

9 COMPLAINT

Case 3:14-cv-00820-ST Document 1 Filed 05/18/14 Page 9 of 20 Page ID#: 9
26. The Defendants’ written and/or de facto policy, practice and custom

mandating wholesale unreasonable strip searches has been promulgated, effectuated

and/or enforced in bad faith and contrary to clearly established law. 

27. Upon information and belief, the aforementioned CC and Policy Making

Defendant have promulgated, implemented, enforced, and/or failed to rectify a written

and/or de facto policy, practice or custom of public, mass strip-searching all in the

custody of CCJ in an unreasonable fashion.

28. Pursuant to this written and/or de facto policy, each member of the Classes,

including the named Plaintiffs, were the victims of a routine strip group and public strip

searches. 

29. This policy, custom or practices of group strip searches are in violation of the

ABA Standard 23-7.9 Searches of prisoners’ bodies and OAR 291-041-0020 Inmates to

wit:

ABA Standard 23-7.9 

(a) In conducting a search of a prisoner’s body, correctional authorities should strive to 

preserve the privacy and dignity of the prisoner. Correctional authorities should use 

the least intrusive appropriate means to search a prisoner. Searches of prisoners’ 

bodies should follow a written protocol that implements this Standard.

(b) Except in exigent situations, a search of a prisoner’s body, including a pat-down 

search or a visual search of the prisoner’s private bodily areas, should be conducted 

by 

(d) Visual searches of a prisoner’s private bodily areas, whether or not inspection 

includes the prisoner’s body cavities, should:

(i) be conducted only by trained personnel in a private place out of the sight of other 

prisoners and of staff not involved in the search, (emphasis added) except that a 

prisoner should be permitted to request that more than one staff member be present; 

and

The relevant OAR states in part:

1 COMPLAINT

Case 3:14-cv-00820-ST Document 1 Filed 05/18/14 Page 10 of 20 Page ID#: 10
291-041-0010 Definitions

(c) Skin: A search procedure wherein the person being searched removes all of his/her 

clothing and is visually examined and clothing removed is carefully inspected before 

return and redressing, for the purpose of detecting contraband. 

291-041-0020 Inmates

(7) Skin Searches: Skin searches conducted by DOC staff will be of the same gender 

as the inmate, unless there is an emergency. Except in emergencies, inmates 

undergoing skin searches will be removed to a private area for the search. 

(Emphasis added)

30. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful strip search conducted

pursuant to this written and/or de facto policy, the victims of the unlawful strip searches –

each member of the class, including the named Plaintiff(s) – have suffered or will suffer

psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish.

Facts Applicable to the Plaintiff Scott Graue

31. Scott Graue's experiences are representative of the class at large. On a daily

basis, seven days a week from on or about May 19, 2012 until the present CC searched

inmates randomly , after hearings and on a routine schedule. Mr. Graue and others

sustained multiple public strip searches, and on October 10, 2012 Graue sustained a mass

public strip search in open areas of the CCJ likely exceeding 160 inmates, and deputies

strip searched him and others in a group and public fashion. A tort claim notice from

Graue timely issued on January 21, 2013.

32. As Corrections Officers watched, Mr. Graue and others removed all of their

clothing, including underpants. 

11 COMPLAINT

Case 3:14-cv-00820-ST Document 1 Filed 05/18/14 Page 11 of 20 Page ID#: 11
33. A Corrections Officer inspected Mr. Graue from top to bottom while naked.

The deputy then instructed him to bend over and spread his buttocks, lift and separate the

penis and testicles. (Women have to lift breasts ).

34. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful strip search conducted

pursuant to CC policy, practice and custom, he has suffered and continues to suffer

psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish.

Facts Applicable to the Plaintiff David Hodges

35. David Hodges' experiences are representative of the class at large. On a

daily basis, seven days a week from on or about May 19, 2012 until the present CC

searched inmates randomly , after hearings and on a routine schedule, and Mr. Hodges

and others sustained multiple public strip searches, and on October 10, 2012 Hodges

sustained a mass public strip in open areas of the CCJ likely exceeding 160 inmates, and

deputies strip searched him and others in a group and public fashion.

36. As Corrections Officers watched, Mr. Hodges and others removed all of

their clothing, including underpants. 

37. A Corrections Officer inspected Mr. Hodges from top to bottom while naked.

The deputy then instructed him to bend over and spread his buttocks, lift and separate the

penis and testicles. (Women have to lift breasts ).

1 COMPLAINT

Case 3:14-cv-00820-ST Document 1 Filed 05/18/14 Page 12 of 20 Page ID#: 12
Facts Applicable to the Plaintiff William Dillon

38. William Dillon's experiences are representative of the class at large. Mr.

Dillon suffered group strip searches on multiple occasions in 2013 including but not

limited to on or about February 15, 2013 and February 19, 2013, after court dates.

39. As Corrections Officers watched, Mr. Dillon and others removed all of their

clothing, including underpants. 

40. A Corrections Officer inspected Mr. Dillon from top to bottom while naked.

The deputy then instructed him to bend over and spread his buttocks, lift and separate the

penis and testicles. (Women have to lift breasts ).

41. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful strip search conducted

pursuant to CC policy, practice and custom, he has suffered and continues to suffer

psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish.

CAUSES OF ACTION

AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

Violation of Constitutional Rights Under Color of State Law

-- Unreasonable Search and Failure to Implement County Policies to Avoid

Constitutional Deprivations Under of Color of State Law --

42. Plaintiff(s) incorporate by reference and realleges each and every allegation

stated in paragraphs 1 through 41.

43. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens

and pre-trial detainees from unreasonable searches by law enforcement officers, and

prohibits deputies from conducting strip searches of individuals absent some

particularized suspicion and in a group and in a public and demeaning fashion.

1 COMPLAINT

Case 3:14-cv-00820-ST Document 1 Filed 05/18/14 Page 13 of 20 Page ID#: 13
44. The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits state and

county officials, such as the Policy Making Defendants in this action and the Corrections

Officers they supervise, from performing strip searches in an unreasonable fashion on

sentenced inmates, as an example of cruel and unusual punishment.

45. The actions of Defendants detailed above violated Plaintiffs' rights under the

United States Constitution. Simply put, it was not objectively reasonable for CC Officers

to strip search Plaintiff (s) and class members absent probable cause and in a public and

group setting. It was also not objectively reasonable for the Policy Making Defendants

to order/direct County Corrections Officers to conduct such searches. 

46. These strip searches were conducted pursuant to the policy, custom or practice

of the County and the County’s Department. As such, the County is directly liable for the

damages of the named Plaintiff(s) and members of the Class(es).

47. Upon information and belief, the aforementioned Sheriff Roberts is

responsible for establishing the policies, customs, practices, and procedures to be utilized

in the operation of their facilities, and is responsible for the implementation of the strip

search policy questioned in this lawsuit and/or ratified the policy. As such, each named

individual is individually responsible for the damages of the named Plaintiff(s) and

members of the Class. 

48. Named individuals knew that the strip search policy was illegal, and acted

willfully, knowingly, and with specific intent to deprive Plaintiffs and members of the

Class of their Constitutional rights.

49. This conduct on the part of all Defendants represents a violation of 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983, given that their actions were undertaken under color of state law.

1 COMPLAINT

Case 3:14-cv-00820-ST Document 1 Filed 05/18/14 Page 14 of 20 Page ID#: 14
50. As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional acts described above,

Plaintiff(s) and members of the proposed class have been irreparably injured.

51. Defendant Roberts is the Clackamas County Sheriff , and final decision-maker

with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and sentenced detainees and inmates over which

the CC exercises custodial or other control. He is made a defendant in this action in both

his individual and official capacities. Mr. Roberts is referred to as the “Policy Making

Defendant.”

1 COMPLAINT

Case 3:14-cv-00820-ST Document 1 Filed 05/18/14 Page 15 of 20 Page ID#: 15
AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

-- Demand for Declaratory Judgment --

52. Plaintiff(s) incorporate by reference and realleges each and every allegation

stated in paragraphs 1 through 51.

53. The policy, custom and practice of the County Departments, the County and

the Policy Making Defendants are clearly unconstitutional, in that these entities and

individuals are directing/conducting the strip searches of all individuals on kitchen duty

in CC custody without any particularized suspicion that the individuals in question have

either contraband or weapons, and the searches are unconstitutional in their scope,

manner and duration.

54. Plaintiff(s) and members of the Class(es) request that this Court issue a

declaratory judgment, and that it declare the strip search policies of the County and the

County Departments to be unconstitutional.

AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

-- Demand for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction --

55. Plaintiff incorporate by reference and realleges each and every allegation

stated in paragraphs 1 through 54.

56. The policy, custom and practice of the County Departments, the County and

the Policy Making Defendants are clearly unconstitutional, in that these entities and

individuals are directing/conducting the strip searches CC custody in a group and public

setting and absent any particularized suspicion that the individuals in question have

either contraband or weapons.

1 COMPLAINT

Case 3:14-cv-00820-ST Document 1 Filed 05/18/14 Page 16 of 20 Page ID#: 16
57. Upon information and belief, this policy is currently in place at the CC

facilities, with new and/or prospective members of the Class being subjected to the harms

that have already been inflicted upon the named Plaintiff(s). 

58. The continuing pattern of strip searching individuals in group and public

settings will cause irreparable harm to the new and/or prospective members of the Class,

an adequate remedy for which does not exist at law.

59. Plaintiffs demand that the County, the County Departments, the Policy

Making Defendants and County Corrections Officers immediately desist from strip

searching individuals placed into their custody whether pre-trial or sentenced, in group

and puvlic settings and also absent any particularized suspicion that the individuals in

question have either contraband or weapons, and seek both a preliminary and permanent

injunction from this Court ordering as much.

1 COMPLAINT

Case 3:14-cv-00820-ST Document 1 Filed 05/18/14 Page 17 of 20 Page ID#: 17
DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES

60. The actions of the Individual Defendants detailed herein are outrageous, in

that they continue to propagate an illegal strip search policy even though they know for a

fact that their actions are unconstitutional.

61. It is clear that the Policy Making Defendant Roberts, the County and the

County Departments and all other named defendant counties have no respect for the civil

rights of individual citizens or for the rule of law. Consequently, an award of punitive

damages is necessary to punish the Policy Making Defendants, and to send a message to

them that the requirements of the United States Constitution also apply to government

officials in all named counties.

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

62. The Plaintiff(s) hereby demand trial by jury.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs William Dillon, Scott Graue, David Hodges

individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, request that this

Honorable Court grants them the following relief:

A. An order certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

B. A judgment against all Defendants, jointly and severally on Plaintiffs’ First

Cause of Action detailed herein, awarding Compensatory Damages to each

named Plaintiff and each member of the proposed class in an amount to be

1 COMPLAINT

Case 3:14-cv-00820-ST Document 1 Filed 05/18/14 Page 18 of 20 Page ID#: 18
determined by a Jury and/or the Court on both an individual and a class wide

basis. 

C. A judgment against each individual Defendant on Plaintiffs’ First Cause of

Action for $1,000,000.00 in punitive damages for each.

D. A declaratory judgment against all Defendants declaring the aforementioned

Counties and County Departments’ policies, practices and customs of group

and public strip and visual cavity searching, regardless of suspicion of

contraband, to be unconstitutional and improper.

E. A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from

continuing to strip and visual cavity search individuals in group and public

fashion all in custody absent particularized, reasonable suspicion that the

arrestee subjected to the search is concealing weapons or other contraband.

F. A monetary award for attorney’s fees and the costs of this action, pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23

Respectfully submitted by:

S//S Leonard R. Berman

Dated: May 18, 2014 ___________________________

Leonard R. Berman, OSB # 96040

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF(S) AND 

THE PROPOSED CLASS

1 COMPLAINT

Case 3:14-cv-00820-ST Document 1 Filed 05/18/14 Page 19 of 20 Page ID#: 19
2 COMPLAINT

Case 3:14-cv-00820-ST Document 1 Filed 05/18/14 Page 20 of 20 Page ID#: 20