Source: https://ru.scribd.com/document/370937336/UW-College-Republicans-Complaint
Timestamp: 2020-05-26 03:39:11
Document Index: 555826463

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 2201', '§ 1343', '§ 1343', '§ 1988', 'art:\n12', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1988', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1988', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1988', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 51', '§ 1988']

UW College Republicans Complaint | Lawsuit | Damages
The College Republicans filed a lawsuit against the University of Washington in U.S. District Court.
сохранитьСохранить «UW College Republicans Complaint» для последующего чтения
Northeast Women's Center v. McMonagle Michael, Wall, Joseph P., Murkum, Roland, Walton, Howard, Tenaglio, Henry, Morello, Stephanie, Breen, Annemarie, Jones, Ellen, Long, Kathy, Silcox, Susan, Armes, Paul C., Geis, Walter G., and O'brien, John J., Codichini, James, Walton, Patricia, Sadler, Diane, Swyer, Miriam, Byrne, Mary, Corbett, Linda, McIlhenny Thomas, Ludwig, Patricia, Lynch, Gerrald, Caponi, Margaret, Baker, Deborah, Herilhy, Thomas, Varallo, Pasquale, Stanton, John, Knorr, Anne, Connor, John, Stevens, Elliott, Hand, Harry, Wirfell, Laurie, Gaydos, Helena, Moran, Robert, Essex, Earl, McNamara Patricia, Andracavage, Donna, Guerra, Juan, Hearn, Linda. Appeal of Michael McMonagle Dennis Sadler, Deborah Baker, Thomas Herilhy, Anne Knorr, Robert Moran, Joseph P. Wall, Roland Markun, Howard Walton, Henry Tenaglio, Stephanie Morello, Ellen Jones, Annemarie Breen, Susan Silcox, Paul C. Armes, Walter G. Geis, John J. O'brien, Patricia Walton, Kathy Long, Helena Gaydos, Donna Andracavage
Case 2:18-cv-00189 Document 1 Filed 02/06/18 Page 1 of 18
9 COLLEGE REPUBLICANS OF THE
10 NO. ___________________
CHEVY SWANSON, an Individual,
12 VIOLATIONS AND RELATED
13 vs. CLAIMS
14 ANA MARI CAUCE, in her official capacity
Washington; GERALD J. BALDASTY, in
16 his official capacity as provost and executive
vice president; RENE SINGLETON,
17 individually and in her official capacity as
18 assistant director, Student Activities;
CHRISTINA COOP, individually and in
19 her official capacity as senior activities
advisor, Student Activities; JOHN N.
VINSON, individually and in his official
21 capacity as Chief of the University of
Washington, Seattle, Police Department;
22 CRAIG WILSON individually and in his
official capacity as University of
Washington, Seattle, Police Department
24 Patrol Commander; and DOES 1-25;
25 Defendants.
COMPLAINT Page - 1 FREEDOM X
310-765-6328 Fax: 310-765-6328
Case 2:18-cv-00189 Document 1 Filed 02/06/18 Page 2 of 18
Plaintiffs University of Washington College Republicans and Chevy Swanson
4 (collectively “Plaintiffs”) bring this action against Defendants Ana Mari Cauce,
5 individually and in her official capacity as president of the University of Washington;
Gerald J. Baldasty, in his official capacity as provost and executive vice president of the
University of Washington; Rene Singleton, individually and in her official capacity as
9 assistant director, Student Activities at the University of Washington, Seattle (“UW
10 Seattle”); Christina Coop, individually and in her official capacity as senior activities
advisor, Student Activities at the UW Seattle; John N. Vinson, individually and in his
official capacity as Chief of the UW Seattle Police Department; Craig Wilson,
14 individually and in his official capacity as UW Seattle Department Patrol Commander;
15 and DOES 1-25, for nominal, compensatory, punitive, declaratory and injunctive relief.
1. This action seeks to protect and vindicate fundamental rights. It is a civil
rights action brought under the First and Fourteenth Amendments against government
20 actors responsible for imposing draconian and unreasonable security fees on Plaintiffs
21 as a condition for permitting them to host a conservative speaker in Red Square within
the UW Seattle campus. The imposition of a $17,000 security fee for a Saturday afternoon
event featuring an evangelical Christian speaker is remarkable. But UW Seattle justifies
25 it only on the basis of an unconstitutional heckler’s veto, in essence, rewarding members
26 of society so intolerant of and hostile to hearing views they find objectionable they must
COMPLAINT Page - 2 FREEDOM X
Case 2:18-cv-00189 Document 1 Filed 02/06/18 Page 3 of 18
1 threaten and/or commit violence to protect themselves from such views. By imposing
such an exorbitantly large security fee on the Plaintiffs, Defendants, and each of them,
are responsible for ratifying an unconstitutional heckler’s veto, taxing protected speech
5 and rewarding those who disrespect the solemn and precious freedoms safeguarded
6 within the First Amendment.
2. This action arises under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution, and is authorized pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in relation to
11 Defendants’ deprivation of the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. Accordingly, this Court
12 has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343.
3. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Each and all of the acts alleged
herein were done by Defendants within King County, Washington.
16 4. This Court is authorized to grant a Declaratory Judgment under the
17 Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02, implemented through Rule 57 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and to issue the injunctive relief requested by Plaintiff under
Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; the requested injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1343(3); the requested damages under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3); and attorneys’ fees and costs under
22 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
24 A. Plaintiffs
25 5. Plaintiff College Republicans of the University of Washington is a
registered student organization of the University of Washington, Seattle.
COMPLAINT Page - 3 FREEDOM X
Case 2:18-cv-00189 Document 1 Filed 02/06/18 Page 4 of 18
1 6. Plaintiff Chevy Swanson is an individual residing in the City of Seattle, a
student at the University of Washington, Seattle, and president of the College
Republicans of the University of Washington.
5 B. UW Seattle Defendants
6 7. Defendant Ana Mari Cauce, is sued in her individual and official capacity
7 as president of the University of Washington.
8. Defendant Gerald J. Baldasty is sued in his official capacity as provost and
executive vice president of the University of Washington.
11 9. Defendant Rene Singleton is sued individually and in her official capacity
12 as assistant director, Student Activities, of the University of Washington.
10. Defendant Christina Coop, individually and in her official capacity as
senior activities advisor, Student Activities, of the University of Washington.
16 11. Defendant John N. Vinson is sued individually and in his official capacity
17 as Chief of the University of Washington Police Department.
12. Defendant Craig Wilson is sued individually and in his official capacity as
Patrol Commander within the University of Washington Police Department.
21 13. Plaintiffs are unaware of the true names and/or capacities of defendants
22 sued herein as DOES 1-25 (“UW Seattle DOES”) and therefore sue said defendants by
such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to allege their true names
and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiffs believe and allege that each of the DOE
26 defendants is legally responsible and liable for the incident, injuries, and damages set
COMPLAINT Page - 4 FREEDOM X
Case 2:18-cv-00189 Document 1 Filed 02/06/18 Page 5 of 18
1 forth in this Complaint. Each defendant proximately caused injuries and damages
because of their active participation in the subject incident, and/or because of their
negligence, breach of duty, negligent supervision, management or control, violation of
5 public policy, or tortious conduct. Each defendant is liable for his/her personal conduct,
6 vicarious or imputed negligence, fault, or breach of duty, whether severally or jointly,
or whether based upon agency, employment, ownership, entrustment, custody, care or
control or upon any other act or omission. Plaintiffs will ask leave to amend this
10 Complaint subject to further discovery and investigation.
11 FACTUAL BACKGROUND
12 14. In January 2017, the College Republicans hosted an event featuring
political provocateur Milo Yiannopolous in Kane Hall on the UW Seattle campus. Exh.
1, Decl. Swanson, ¶ 3. The event drew significant blowback from members of the
16 community who contacted the University hoping to have the event cancelled. Id.
17 15. Chevy Swanson was event coordinator for the College Republicans and
directly involved in planning for the Yiannopolous event. Id., ¶ 4. Swanson and other
club members met multiple times with campus administration. Id. Initially, the
21 administration estimated security, building rental, equipment and staffing would cost
22 the group $1,000. Id. In subsequent meetings, they were given a revised estimate of
$5,000 and $7,000. Id. At no time, did the administration officials explain the rising cost
estimates except to say that because they were expecting heightened protests, the cost
26 of security would increase to cover additional officers. Id.
COMPLAINT Page - 5 FREEDOM X
Case 2:18-cv-00189 Document 1 Filed 02/06/18 Page 6 of 18
1 16. On January 20, 2017, the night of the Yiannopolous event, approximately
400 people gathered in Red Square to cue up for the event. Id., ¶ 5. At approximately 5
p.m., a number of black-clad individuals wearing masks carrying sticks and flagpoles
5 showed up breaking bricks, attempting to bust down barricades and harassing people.
17. At approximately 7 p.m. an altercation occurred in which a protester was
shot. Two people were charged with assaulting the protester. Id., ¶ 6. As a result of the
10 Yiannopolous event requiring substantial security, the University adopted a “Safety and
11 Security Protocols for Events” policy. Id. The policy states in relevant part:
12 When the use of campus facilities involves events, activities, and
13 programs that are likely to significantly affect campus safety,
security, and operation, the University will perform an analysis of
14 all event factors. This could result in additional conditions and
requirements placed on the host organization in order to maintain
the safety and security of all organizing parties, guests attending,
16 and the broader campus community. Safety and security concerns
may include, but are not limited to, history or examples of violence,
17 bodily harm, property damage, significant disruption of campus
18 operations, and those actions prohibited by the campus code of
conduct and state and federal law.
During the planning process, host organizations or groups are
20 responsible for making the University aware of any known histories
21 and/or issues of safety and security concerns. The University (i.e.,
venue coordinator and UWPD) may review all event details and
22 logistics to determine necessary safety and security protocols.
Additionally, if previously unknown or new safety and security
concerns arise during the planning process, the University will
24 review the event details and may alter any conditions and
requirements. Any determination by authorized campus officials
25 will be based on an assessment of credible information other than
26 the content or viewpoints anticipated to be expressed during the
event. Other events taking place on or near campus will be taken into
COMPLAINT Page - 6 FREEDOM X
Case 2:18-cv-00189 Document 1 Filed 02/06/18 Page 7 of 18
1 consideration in the security review. Required security measures
may include, but are not limited to, adjusting the venue, date, and
timing of the event; providing additional law enforcement; imposing
3 access controls or security checkpoints limiting costumes or items
carried; and/or creating buffer zones around the venue.
The host organization or group will be required to pay costs of
reasonable event security as determined in advance by the
6 University. These costs include, but are not limited to security
personnel, costs to secure the venue from damage, and special
7 equipment as determined by law enforcement. Security fees will be
8 based on standard and approved recharge rates for UWPD, other
security personnel, and associated equipment costs or rentals.
9 Should the University place supplementary security protocols prior
to or during the event to provide adequate security to help mitigate
any originally unforeseen security concerns, additional security fees
11 may be charged to host organizations or groups. Host organizations
are financially responsible for damage, inside or outside of the
12 venue, caused by members of their organization or their invitees.
13 The University reserves the right, in rare circumstances, to cancel an
14 event if based on information available it is reasonably believed that
there is a credible threat which unreasonably places the campus
15 community at risk of harm.
17 18. The College Republicans raised money to cover the security fees through
a gofundme campaign. Id., ¶ 7. After the event, the College Republicans received an
invoice from the University for $9,121, which they paid from the money received from
21 the gofundme campaign. Id. However, the College Republicans did not plan other
22 events in 2017 due to their inability to cover the exorbitant security costs they
anticipated needing. Id.
19. In October 2017, an individual associated with Patriot Prayer, Kyle
26 Broussard, contacted Swanson offering to have the group’s founder and leader, Joey
COMPLAINT Page - 7 FREEDOM X
Case 2:18-cv-00189 Document 1 Filed 02/06/18 Page 8 of 18
1 Gibson, come to the campus on November 22, 2017, for an indoor speaking event. Id., ¶
8. Patriot Prayer is an informal group of evangelical Christians formed and led by
Gibson to convey a message of peace. Id. Its Facebook page says it is about “using the
5 power of love and prayer to fight the corruption both in the government and citizen
6 levels that seek to gain power through division and deception.”1 Id. Despite this
description, Gibson has been the target of physical assault by Antifa and similar violent
left-wing activist groups who label him a white supremacist and Nazi. Id.
10 20. In October 2017, Swanson, along with other members of the College
11 Republicans, met with Defendant Renee Singleton, assistant director of Student
12 Activities, and Christina Coop, senior activities advisor for Student Activities, to discuss
planning for the Patriot Prayer event. Id., ¶ 9. Defendant Singleton told Swanson that
security costs would be high due to security concerns. Id. Singleton also told Swanson
16 that Patriot Prayer is a controversial group and would present major security problems.
17 Id. Based on those representations, the College Republicans decided not to move
forward with the event. Id.
21. In January 2018, the College Republicans discussed holding a Patriot
21 Prayer event outdoors to defray the costs associated with room, equipment and some
22 of the security costs. Id., ¶ 10. The group reached out to Gibson to inquire about
scheduling an outdoor event in February 2018. Id.
27 1 https://www.facebook.com/pg/PatriotPrayerUSA/about/?ref=page_internal.
COMPLAINT Page - 8 FREEDOM X
Case 2:18-cv-00189 Document 1 Filed 02/06/18 Page 9 of 18
1 22. Swanson met again with campus advisors to discuss planning for a
February outdoor event. Id., ¶ 11. On February 1, 2018, Defendant Craig Wilson, Patrol
Commander with the UW Seattle Police Department, told Swanson the cost of security
5 would be $17,000 due to expected violent protests. Id. Wilson did not explicitly detail
6 the reasons for such a large security fee. Id. No other group has been charged such an
excessively large security fee in the past. Id., Exh. 1, UWPD Security Costs for 2016-17,
obtained through a Washington State Public Records Request.
Violation of the First Amendment (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
14 (All Plaintiffs Against All UW Seattle Defendants)
15 23. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding
24. Red Square is a designated public fora – as it must be, under state-wide
19 regulations, and long-standing Supreme Court precedent. Accordingly, UW Seattle is
20 required to allow plaintiffs to bring speakers of their own choosing to speak on campus,
free from viewpoint discrimination, content-based speech restrictions that are not
narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest, and content-neutral time,
24 place and manner restrictions that are not narrowly tailored to serve an important
25 government interest or that fail to leave open ample alternative channels for the
COMPLAINT Page - 9 FREEDOM X
Case 2:18-cv-00189 Document 1 Filed 02/06/18 Page 10 of 18
1 25. Defendants, acting under color of state law and according to UW Seattle
policy, custom, pattern, and practice, have failed to meet these constitutional standards
by adopting and enforcing a facially and as-applied unconstitutional security fee policy
5 that grants Defendants unfettered discretion to impose unreasonable security fees;
6 which Defendants have enforced according to the their whim and taste, or the demands
of an off-campus mob of masked agitators.
26. Defendants’ actions fail to meet constitutional scrutiny because the
10 security fee policy is facially and as-applied unreasonable, and was adopted and
11 enforced in a viewpoint discriminatory manner, with the effect of chilling,
12 marginalizing, or banning the expression of conservative viewpoints on the UW Seattle
27. The security fee policy is unconstitutionally vague, and therefore void as
16 a matter of law, both on its face, and as it is being applied to Plaintiffs.
17 28. As a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants’ violation of
Plaintiffs’ federal civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the First Amendment, Plaintiffs
have suffered and will suffer irreparable injury that cannot fully be compensated by an
21 award of monetary damages.
22 29. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, Plaintiffs are entitled to
declaratory relief and temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief
invalidating and restraining enforcement of the restrictions allowed or required by the
26 security fee policy. Additionally, plaintiffs are entitled to monetary damages arising
COMPLAINT Page - 10 FREEDOM X
Case 2:18-cv-00189 Document 1 Filed 02/06/18 Page 11 of 18
1 from the unconstitutional actions of Defendants and each of them, sued herein in their
individual capacities, as well as reasonable costs of suit.
30. Plaintiffs found it necessary to engage the services of private counsel to
5 vindicate their rights under the law. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to an award of
6 attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
7 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
9 (Freedom of Assembly)
(All Plaintiffs Against All UW Seattle Defendants)
11 31. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding
12 paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein.
32. The First Amendment prohibits government from abridging the right of
the people to assemble peaceably. Freedom of assembly is the individual right or ability
16 of people to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue, and defend their
17 ideas. The right to freedom of association is recognized as a human right, a
political right and a civil liberty.
33. Defendants, and each of them, abridge Plaintiffs’ right to assemble by
21 imposing a draconian and unreasonable security fee for their scheduled event, thereby
22 creating and enforcing a de facto prohibition on their right to assemble without
government-approved endorsement of their message.
34. As a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants’ violation of
26 Plaintiffs’ federal civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the First Amendment, Plaintiffs
COMPLAINT Page - 11 FREEDOM X
Case 2:18-cv-00189 Document 1 Filed 02/06/18 Page 12 of 18
1 have suffered and will suffer irreparable injury that cannot fully be compensated by an
award of monetary damages.
35. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, Plaintiffs are entitled to
5 declaratory relief and temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief
6 invalidating and restraining enforcement of the restrictions allowed or required by the
security fee policy. Additionally, plaintiffs are entitled to monetary damages arising
from the unconstitutional actions of Defendants and each of them, sued herein in their
10 individual capacities, as well as reasonable costs of suit.
11 36. Plaintiffs found it necessary to engage the services of private counsel to
12 vindicate their rights under the law. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to an award of
attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
16 Violation of the First Amendment (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
17 (All Plaintiffs Against All UW Seattle Defendants)
37. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding
21 38. Plaintiffs and their members have engaged in constitutionally protected
22 speech, namely, holding and expressing conservative viewpoints by inviting
conservative speakers to speak on the UW Seattle campus.
39. By treating Plaintiffs and their members differently from similarly
26 situated students, student organizations, and members of the public because they are
COMPLAINT Page - 12 FREEDOM X
Case 2:18-cv-00189 Document 1 Filed 02/06/18 Page 13 of 18
1 conservative and because of their conservative beliefs, among other things, Defendants,
acting under color of state law and according to policy and practice, have retaliated
against Plaintiffs and their members for holding and expressing disfavored views, and
5 in so retaliating, have engaged in conduct that would chill a person of ordinary firmness
6 from continuing to engage in the protected speech activity.
40. Plaintiffs and their members’ actions in holding and expressing
disfavored views was a substantial and motivating factor in Defendants’ retaliation
10 against them by imposing unlawful restrictions on Plaintiffs and their members’ federal
11 civil rights secured under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the First Amendment, causing Plaintiffs
12 to suffer and continue in the future to suffer irreparable injury that cannot be fully
compensated by an award of monetary damages.
41. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, Plaintiffs are entitled to
16 declaratory relief and temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief
17 invalidating and restraining Defendants’ retaliation against BCR and its members for
their utterances of protected speech.
42. Additionally, Plaintiffs are entitled to monetary damages arising from the
21 unconstitutional actions of Defendants, and each of them, sued herein in their
22 individual capacities, as well as reasonable costs of suit.
43. Plaintiffs found it necessary to engage the services of private counsel to
vindicate their rights under the law. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to an award of
26 attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
COMPLAINT Page - 13 FREEDOM X
Case 2:18-cv-00189 Document 1 Filed 02/06/18 Page 14 of 18
1 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
2 Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
3 (Due Process)
44. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding
6 paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein.
7 45. Defendants, acting under color of state law and according to a policy,
pattern and practice, have enacted a security fee policy, which is vague, overbroad, and
improperly affords Defendants unfettered discretion in its application, and therefore
11 deprives Plaintiffs of their clearly established due process rights guaranteed by the
12 Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
46. As a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants’ violations of
Plaintiffs federal civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment,
16 Plaintiffs have suffered and will suffer irreparable injury that cannot fully be
17 compensated by an award of monetary damages.
47. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, Plaintiffs are entitled to
21 invalidating and restraining enforcement of the security fee policy. Additionally,
22 Plaintiffs are entitled to monetary damages arising from the unconstitutional actions of
Defendants, and each of them, sued herein in their individual capacities, as well as
reasonable costs of suit.
COMPLAINT Page - 14 FREEDOM X
Case 2:18-cv-00189 Document 1 Filed 02/06/18 Page 15 of 18
1 48. Plaintiffs found it necessary to engage the services of private counsel to
5 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
6 Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
7 (All Plaintiffs Against All UW Seattle Defendants)
49. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding
11 50. By treating Plaintiffs and their members, differently from similarly
12 situated students, student organizations, and members of the public because they are
conservative and because of their conservative beliefs, among other things, Defendants,
acting under color of state law and according to policy and practice, have engaged in
16 actions that discriminate on the basis of political status and belief and have therefore
17 deprived Plaintiffs of their clearly established equal protection rights guaranteed by the
51. As a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants’ violations of
21 Plaintiffs’ federal civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment,
22 Plaintiffs have suffered and will suffer irreparable injury that cannot be fully
52. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, Plaintiffs are entitled to
26 declaratory relief and temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief
COMPLAINT Page - 15 FREEDOM X
Case 2:18-cv-00189 Document 1 Filed 02/06/18 Page 16 of 18
1 invalidating and restraining enforcement of the security fee policy. Additionally,
Plaintiffs are entitled to monetary damages arising from the unconstitutional actions of
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray for relief and judgment against
7 Defendants, jointly and severally, as follows, in amounts according to proof:
8 1. For judgment in favor of Plaintiffs against Defendants;
2. For all damages legally and/or proximately caused to Plaintiffs by
Defendants in an amount to be determined at trial;
12 3. For a declaration that Defendants * DOES violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983;
13 4. For a declaration that Defendants * violated the First and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution;
5. For a declaration that Defendants * violated the First and Fourteenth
18 6. For nominal damages for the past loss of their constitutional rights as set
19 forth in this Complaint;
7. For compensatory damages according to proof;
8. For punitive and exemplary damages for all claims for which such
23 damages are authorized;
24 9. For temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief requiring *;
10. For civil penalties under Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51.7, 52 & 52.1;
COMPLAINT Page - 16 FREEDOM X
Case 2:18-cv-00189 Document 1 Filed 02/06/18 Page 17 of 18
1 11. For an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 other applicable law;
12. For costs of suit incurred herein; and
5 13. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
DATED this February 6, 2018
7 ELLIS, LI & McKINSTRY PLLC
s/ Kyle D. Netterfield
9 Kyle D. Netterfield WSBA No. 27101
2025 First Avenue PHA
11 Seattle, WA 98121
Telephone: (206) 682-0565
12 Fax: (206) 625-1052
13 Email: knetterfield@elmlaw.com
14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, College
Republicans of the University of
Washington and Chevy Swanson
17 FREEDOM X
19 William J. Becker, Jr., ESQ. SBN No. 134545
20 (Pro Hac Vice Application Pending)
21 11500 Olympic Blvd., Suite 400
22 Telephone: (310)636-1018
23 Fax: (310) 765-6328
Email: bill@freedomxlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs, College
26 Washington and Chevy Swanson
COMPLAINT Page - 17 FREEDOM X
Case 2:18-cv-00189 Document 1 Filed 02/06/18 Page 18 of 18
2 Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs * demand
3 trial by jury on all individual claims they bring against their attackers in this action of
Kyle D. Netterfield WSBA No. 27101
8 Ellis, Li & McKinstry PLLC
9 Seattle, WA 98121
10 Telephone: (206) 682-0565
11 Email: knetterfield@elmlaw.com
12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, College
13 Republicans of the University of
William J. Becker, Jr., ESQ. SBN No. 134545
18 (Pro Hac Vice Application Pending)
19 11500 Olympic Blvd., Suite 400
20 Los Angeles, CA 90064
Telephone: (310)636-1018
21 Fax: (310) 765-6328
23 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, College
24 Washington and Chevy Swanson
COMPLAINT Page - 18 FREEDOM X
Документы, похожие на «UW College Republicans Complaint»
Natres Rule 2
Другое от пользователя: KING 5 News
Bibliography of Prisoner Writing
Stenograma discuției telefonice Trump-Zelensky