Estate of Amilcar Perez Lopez et al v. Suhr et al

Filing 38

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 37 Stipulation For Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2015)

1
2
3
4
5

ARNOLDO CASILLAS, ESQ., SBN 158519
DENISSE O. GASTÉLUM, ESQ., SBN 282771
CASILLAS & ASSOCIATES
3500 W. Beverly Blvd.
Montebello, CA 90640
Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

6

JONATHAN D. MELROD, ESQ., SBN 136441
7 1313 Scheibel Ln.
Sebastopol, CA 95472
8 Tel: [phone]
9 Email: [e-mail]
10

WILLIAM M. SIMPICH, JR., ESQ., SBN 106672
th
11 1736 Franklin St., 10 Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
12 Tel: [phone]
13 Email: [e-mail]
14

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ESTATE OF AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ, by and through
15 successors in interest, JUAN PEREZ and MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ; JUAN
PEREZ, individually; MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ, individually
16
17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

19
20
21
22
23

ESTATE OF AMILCAR PEREZ
LOPEZ, by and through successors in
interest, JUAN PEREZ and
MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ;
JUAN PEREZ, individually;
MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ,
individually;

24

Plaintiffs,

25
26
27

vs.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 3:15-cv-01846 HSG
STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES
FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT

28
1
STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES FOR LEAVE TO FILE
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5

CHIEF OF POLICE GREG SUHR;
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO; SAN FRANCISCO
POLICE DEPARTMENT; OFFICER
CRAIG TIFFE (Badge No. 1312);
OFFICER ERIC REBOLI (Badge No.
1651), and DOES 1 to 10,

6

Defendants.

7

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8
9
10

TO CLERK OF THE COURT:
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties, Plaintiffs ESTATE OF

11

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

12

and MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ; JUAN PEREZ, individually; MARGARITA

13

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

14

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

15

Defendants CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

order is signed.

24

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

25

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

26

signed to file and serve a responsive pleading.

27
28

2
STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES FOR LEAVE TO FILE
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

moot.

6

IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.

7
8

Dated: December 2, 2015

9

By: /s/ Denisse O. Gastélum
ARNOLDO CASILLAS
DENISSE O. GASTÉLUM
Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ESTATE OF
AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ, by and through
successors in interest, JUAN PEREZ and
MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ; JUAN
PEREZ, individually; MARGARITA LOPEZ
PEREZ, individually

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

CASILLAS & ASSOCIATES

Dated: December 2, 2015

DENNIS J. HERRERA
City Attorney
CHERYL ADAMS
Chief Trial Deputy
PETER J. KEITH
ELIZABETH PEDERSON
Deputy City Attorneys

21
22
23
24
25

By:/s/Peter J. Keith
PETER J. KEITH
Attorneys for Defendants
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
(including SAN FRANCISCO POLICE
DEPARTMENT),GREG SUHR, CRAIG
TIFFE, and ERIC REBOLI

26
27
28

3
STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES FOR LEAVE TO FILE
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5

ARNOLDO CASILLAS, ESQ., SBN 158519
DENISSE O. GASTÉLUM, ESQ., SBN 282771
CASILLAS & ASSOCIATES
3500 W. Beverly Blvd.
Montebello, CA 90640
Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

6

JONATHAN D. MELROD, ESQ., SBN 136441
7 1313 Scheibel Ln.
Sebastopol, CA 95472
8 Tel: [phone]
9 Email: [e-mail]
10

WILLIAM M. SIMPICH, JR., ESQ., SBN 106672
th
11 1736 Franklin St., 10 Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
12 Tel: [phone]
13 Email: [e-mail]
14

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ESTATE OF AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ, by and through
15 successors in interest, JUAN PEREZ and MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ; JUAN
PEREZ, individually; MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ, individually
16
17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

19
20
21
22
23

ESTATE OF AMILCAR PEREZ
LOPEZ, by and through successors in
interest, JUAN PEREZ and
MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ;
JUAN PEREZ, individually;
MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ,
individually;

24

Plaintiffs,

25
26

vs.

27

CHIEF OF POLICE GREG SUHR;
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

28

) CASE NO. 3:15-cv-01846 HSG
)
) SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
) FOR DAMAGES
)
)
1. Excessive Force/Unreasonable
)
Seizure (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
)
2. Municipal Liability for
)
Unconstitutional Customs and
)
Practices (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
)
3. Supervisory Liability for
)
Ratification and Failure to Train,
)
Supervise, and Discipline (42
)
U.S.C. § 1983)

1
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1
2
3

FRANCISCO; SAN FRANCISCO
POLICE DEPARTMENT; OFFICER
CRAIG TIFFE (Badge No. 1312);
OFFICER ERIC REBOLI (Badge No.
1651), and DOES 1 to 10,

4

Defendants.

5

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4. Interference with Familial Integrity
Substantive Due Process Violation
(42 U.S.C. § 1983)
5. Assault & Battery
6. Wrongful Death
7. Survivorship
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

6
7
8

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

9

COME NOW Plaintiffs ESTATE OF AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ, by and

10

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

11

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

12

follows:
INTRODUCTION

13
14

1.

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

February 26, 2015.

20

2.

Amilcar was a humble and hardworking young man, who wanted

21

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

22

and unimaginable loss to his parents, the present Plaintiffs.

23

3.

Without justification or cause, Defendants Officer Tiffe and Officer

24

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

25

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

26

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

27
28
2
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1

to show that the cowardly killing of Amilcar was a senseless and unwarranted act of

2

police abuse.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3
4

4.

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

5

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

6

and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction is

7

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

8
9
10
11

5.

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 City and County of San Francisco, California.
6.

With respect to Plaintiffs’ supplemental state claims, Plaintiffs request

12

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

13

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

14
15

7.

Decedent Amilcar Perez Lopez was an individual residing in the City

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

Code of Civil Procedure § 377.32.

20

8.

Plaintiffs JUAN PEREZ and MARGARITA PEREZ LOPEZ, are and

21

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

22

Perez Lopez.

23

9.

Defendant CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO (hereinafter

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28
3
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1

and agencies. SAN FRANCISCO owns, operates, manages, directs and controls

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8
9
10
11

10.

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

is and was, at all relevant times hereto, an individual and the Chief of Police of the
San Francisco Police Department.
11.

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

California.

18

12.

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

State of California.

25

13.

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

26

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

27

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

28
4
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1

to wit, under the color of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs, and

2

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

3

the statutes and regulations of the State of California.

4

14.

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

5

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

6

of SAN FRANCISCO and is sued in their individual capacities.

7

15.

On information and belief, at all relevant times, Defendants TIFFE and

8

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

9

Francisco, California.

10

16.

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

liabilities alleged herein.

16

17.

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

17

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

18

policymakers of SFPD, a department and subdivision of Defendant SAN

19

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

20

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

21

liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior pursuant to California Government

22

Code § 815.2.

23

18.

Defendants DOES 1 through 3 are supervisorial employees for

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

ratification of their principal, Defendant SAN FRANCISCO.

28
5
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1

19.

Defendants DOES 4 through 10 are managerial, supervisorial, and

2

policymaking employees of Defendant SAN FRANCISCO, who were acting under

3

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

4

and policymaking employees for Defendant SAN FRANCISCO. Defendants DOES 9

5

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

6

Defendant SAN FRANCISCO.

7

20.

Each of the Defendants caused and is responsible for the unlawful

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

Defendants is the agent of the other.

22
23
24
25

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
21.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as if set

forth herein.
22.

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

26

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

27

pounds.

28
6
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1

23.

On or about February 26, 2015, at approximately 9:54 p.m., Amilcar

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

24.

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

in cold blood by Officer TIFFE and Officer REBOLI.

17

25.

That same evening, CHIEF SUHR, alongside other SFPD officers,

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

original initiating officer fired one.”

25
26

26.

In the following days, CHIEF SUHR and various SFPD officers,

supervisors and officials conducted further investigations into the shooting of

27
28
7
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1

Amilcar Perez Lopez. An autopsy was also performed by the City and County of San

2

Francisco Office of the Medical Examiner.

3

27.

Notwithstanding the unequivocal physical evidence from the autopsy

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

cowardly acts of Officer TIFFE and Officer REBOLI.

12

28.

Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI killed Amilcar Perez Lopez without

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

excessive under the circumstances.

21

29.

Defendants SAN FRANCISCO and CHIEF SUHR were long aware of

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

a.

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

26

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

27

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

28
8
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1

the head with a baton causing him to bleed profusely. The lawsuit

2

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

3

and battery and the negligent training and supervision by the SAN

4

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

5

b.

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

attack having conducted a background check on REBOLI.

10

c.

Currently, 13 SFPD officers are being investigated for racist and

11

homophobic text messages targeting African- Americans, Latinos,

12

Asians and homosexuals. These acts further evidence the racist and

13

extremist culture existing amongst SFPD police officers.

14

d.

15
16

In February of 2015, a video surfaced capturing SFPD Officer Raymond
Chu hit and kick a homeless man sleeping on a public bus.

e.

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

17

beaten by SFPD police officers Gregory Skaug, Milen Banegas and

18

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

19

on a sidewalk in Valencia Gardens.

20

f.

21
22

In January 2015, a video captured an unnamed SFPD officer shoving a
handicapped man sitting on a wheelchair into the street.

g.

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

23

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

24

vehicle when he was shot seven times.

25

h.

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

26

several unnamed SFPD police officers. Similar to the investigation

27

surrounding the shooting and killing of Amilcar Perez Lopez, the

28
9
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1

investigation into the shooting of Alejandro Nieto uncovered physical

2

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

3

pending regarding this incident.

4

i.

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

5

officers for constitutional rights violations, extortion, perjury, and

6

falsification of police reports. These acts targeted members of several

7

San Francisco communities, including Mission District where Amilcar

8

Perez Lopez was shot and killed.

9

j.

brutally beaten by numerous unnamed SFPD police officers.

10
11

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

k.

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

12

SFPD police officers Matthew Lopez and Richard Hastings for allegedly

13

failing to pay a $2.00 transit fare.

14

l.

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

15

repeatedly punching a subdued suspect. Despite the video footage,

16

SFPD Sergeant Michael Andraychak ratified the conduct during a press

17

conference.

18

m.

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

19

an FBI investigation regarding unlawful searches and seizures which

20

were captured of footage.

21

n.

In May of 2008, SAN FRANCISCO reached a settlement with

22

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

23

used against her person by SFPD Officer Christopher Damonte.

24

o.

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28
10
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1

logged between 1996 and 2004. The series further reports that in any

2

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

3

report using no force at all.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

4
5

Excessive Force/Unreasonable Seizure

6

42 U.S.C. § 1983

7

As Against Defendants C. TIFFE, E. REBOLI, and DOES 1 through 10
30.

8
9

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as if set

forth herein.
31.

10

Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI’s actions described herein violated

11

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

12

United States Constitution incorporated and made applicable to states and

13

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

14

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

15

32.

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

Perez Lopez was unreasonable under the circumstances in every respect.

20

33.

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

21

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

22

United States Constitution.

23

34.

The violation of Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights occurred pursuant

24

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

25

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

26

Amendment to the United States.

27

///

28

///
11
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1

35.

Defendants’ conduct violated clearly established constitutional or other

2

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

3

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

4

36.

The unauthorized, unwarranted killing of Amilcar Perez Lopez was

5

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

6

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

7

TIFFE and REBOLI.

8
9
10
11

37.

After being shot by Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI, Amilcar Perez

Lopez endured great physical and emotional pain and suffering.
38.

Accordingly, Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI are liable to Plaintiff for

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

12

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

13

Municipal Liability for Unconstitutional Customs and Practices

14

42 U.S.C. § 1983

15

As Against Defendant CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

16

SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT and DOES 1 through 10

17
18
19

39.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as if set

forth herein.
On and before February 26, 2015, and prior to the killing of Amilcar Perez

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

in the paragraphs above.

24

40.

Defendants SAN FRANCISCO, SFPD and Does 1 through 10, and each

25

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

26

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

27
28
12
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1

situation and comparable position in particular, knowingly maintained, enforced and

2

applied customs and practices of:

3

a.

use of excessive and unreasonable force, including deadly force;

4
5

Encouraging, accommodating, or ratifying the shooting of residents; the

b.

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

6

SFPD officers/supervisors, pursuant to which false reports were

7

generated and excessive and unreasonable force was covered up;

8

c.

Employing and retraining, as police officers and other personnel,
including individuals such as Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI, who said

9
10

Defendants knew or reasonably should have known had dangerous

11

propensities for abusing their authority and for mistreating members of

12

the public;

13

d.

Inadequately supervising, training, and disciplining SFPD police

14

officers, including Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI, who said

15

Defendants knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have

16

known had the aforementioned propensities and character traits;

17

e.

Maintaining grossly inadequate procedures for reporting, supervising,

18

investigating, reviewing, disciplining and controlling intentional

19

misconduct by officers;

20

f.

Assigning police officers with known histories of misconduct, including

21

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

22

officers to come into contact with members of the public;

23

g.

Ratifying wrongful conduct by police officers and supervisors which

24

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

25

litigation judgments and settlements by failing to implement corrective

26

action to prevent repetition of the wrongful conduct; and

27
28
13
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1

h.

Failing to discipline, investigate and take corrective actions against

2

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

3

unlawful detention, excessive force and false reports.

4

41.

By reason of the aforementioned customs and practices, Plaintiffs were

5

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

6

Claim for Relief.

7

42.

Defendants SAN FRANCISCO, SFPD and Does 1 through 10, with

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

tolerated and through actions and inactions thereby ratified such customs and

12

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

13

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

14

Plaintiffs and other individuals similarly situated.

15

43.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

facts caused the violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

25
26

44.

The policies, practices, and customs implemented and maintained and

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

27
28
14
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1

each of them, were affirmatively linked to and were a significantly influential force

2

behind the injuries of Plaintiffs.

3
4
5
6

45.

By reason of the aforementioned acts and omissions, Amilcar Perez

Lopez was shot and killed by Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI.
46.

Accordingly, Defendant SAN FRANCISCO is liable to Plaintiffs for

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

7

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

8

Supervisory Liability for Ratification and

9

Failure to Train, Supervise and Discipline

10

42 U.S.C. § 1983

11

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

12

47.

13
14

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as if set

forth herein.
48.

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

in the paragraphs above.

19

49.

Defendant CHIEF SUHR and Does 1through10 are sued in their

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

by Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI.

24

50.

As described in more detail in the paragraphs above, Defendant CHIEF

25

SUHR was presented with physical evidence unequivocally confirming that all six

26

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

27

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

28
15
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1

the conduct of Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI to ensure that said Defendants did not

2

receive any meaningful discipline.

3

51.

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

52.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that prior to the

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

force against members of the public.

24

53.

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

25

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

26

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

27
28
16
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1

and comparable position in particular, knowingly maintained, enforced and applied

2

customs and practices of:

3

a.

Ratifying wrongful conduct by police officers and supervisors which

4

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

5

litigation judgments and settlements by failing to implement corrective

6

action to prevent repetition of the wrongful conduct;

7

b.

Failing to discipline, investigate and take corrective actions against

8

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

9

unlawful detention, excessive force and false reports;

10

c.

Ratifying investigative reports and diagrams designed to vindicate the

11

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

12

acts were justified;

13

d.

Ratifying investigative reports and diagrams which uncritically rely

14

solely on the word of officers involved in the aforementioned

15

confrontations and which systematically fail to credit testimony by non-

16

officer witnesses;

17

e.

Ratifying investigative reports and diagrams which omit factual

18

information and physical evidence which contradicts the accounts of the

19

involved officers, including contradictory physical evidence revealed

20

from autopsy reports;

21

f.

Issuing false public statements exonerating officers and other personnel

22

involved in such incidents even after being presented with contradictory

23

reliable physical evidence, such as autopsy reports;

24

g.

Employing and retraining, as police officers and other personnel,

25

including individuals such as Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI, who said

26

Defendants knew or reasonably should have known had dangerous

27
28
17
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1

propensities for abusing their authority and for mistreating members of

2

the public; and
h.

3

Inadequately supervising, training, controlling, assigning, and

4

disciplining SFPD police officers, including Defendants TIFFE and

5

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

6

care should have known had the aforementioned propensities and

7

character traits.
54.

8
9

By reason of the aforementioned customs and practices, Plaintiffs were

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

10

Claim for Relief.

11

55.

12

By reason of the aforementioned acts and omissions, Amilcar Perez

Lopez was shot and killed by Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI.
56.

13

Accordingly, Defendant SAN FRANCISCO is liable to Plaintiffs for

14

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

15

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

16

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

17

Interference with Familial Integrity

18

Substantive Due Process Violation

19

42 U.S.C. § 1983

20

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

21

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO POLICE

22

DEPARTMENT and DOES 1 through 10

23
24

57.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as if set

forth herein.

25

58.

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

26

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

27

United States Constitution.

28

///
18
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

59.

1

As alleged above, the shooting and killing of Amilcar Perez Lopez was

2

unreasonable under the circumstances of the encounter between Amilcar Perez Lopez

3

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

4

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

5

violation of the Fourth Amendment’s limits on unreasonable seizures.
60.

6

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

7

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

8

MARGARITA PEREZ LOPEZ to be free from police interference in their

9

relationship with Amilcar Perez Lopez.
61.

10

The unreasonable conduct of Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI was the

11

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

12

unreasonable conduct of Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI, Plaintiffs lost Amilcar

13

Perez Lopez, as well as his love, affection, society and moral support.
62.

14

The unreasonable conduct of these Defendants was willful and done

15

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

16

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

17

Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI.

18

63.

Accordingly, Defendants CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

19

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

20

42 U.S.C. § 1983.

21

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

22

ASSAULT & BATTERY

23

Against Defendants C. TIFFE, E. REBOLI,

24

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO POLICE

25

DEPARTMENT and DOES 1 through 10

26

64.

27

forth herein.

28

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as if set

///
19
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1

65.

This cause of action arises under the general laws and Constitution of the

2

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

3

requirements.

4

66.

Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI assaulted and battered Amilcar Perez-

5

Lopez, as pleaded herein above, when said Defendants acted intentionally to cause,

6

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

7

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

8

shooting and killing Amilcar Perez Lopez.

9
10
11

67.

These acts were undertaken by Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI

intentionally and without justification.
68.

As a result of these deliberate and unjustified acts undertaken by

12

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

13

emotional pain and suffering.

14

69.

These deliberate and unjustified acts undertaken by Defendants TIFFE

15

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

16

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

17

damages as to Defendants TIFFE and REBOLI.

18

70.

Defendants CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO and SAN

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

Government Code § 815.2.

23

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

24

WRONGFUL DEATH

25

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

26

FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT

27

and DOES 1 through 10

28
20
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1
2
3

71.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as if set

forth herein.
72.

This cause of action arises under the general laws and Constitution of the

4

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

5

requirements.

6

73.

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

REBOLI had no legal or reasonable justification for their actions.

13

74.

As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants REBOLI

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

Defendants REBOLI and TIFFE.

19

75.

Defendants CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO and SAN

20

FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT are vicariously liable for the wrongful,

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

26

SURVIVORSHIP

27
28
21
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1

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

2

FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT and DOES 1

3

through 10

4
5
6

76.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as if set

forth herein.
77.

This cause of action arises under the general laws and Constitution of the

7

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

8

requirements.

9

78.

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

377.30.

15

79.

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

16

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

17

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

18

80.

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

interest as allowed by law and costs of suit.

23

81.

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

24

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

25

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

26

shooting as spelled out herein above.

27
28
22
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1

82.

Said conduct was the direct and proximate cause of the damages suffered

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

according to proof at trial.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

8
9
10
11

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs requests entry of judgment in their favor and against
Defendants as follows:
A.

For compensatory damages, including pre-death pain and suffering

12

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

13

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

14

amount to be determined at trial;

15

B.

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

16

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

17

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

18

C.

For prejudgment interest to be determined at trial;

19

D.

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

20
21
22

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

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

appropriate.

23
24

Dated: December 1, 2015

CASILLAS & ASSOCIATES

25
26
27

By _/s/ Arnoldo Casillas
ARNOLDO CASILLAS
DENISSE O. GASTÉLUM

28
23
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ESTATE OF
AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ, by and through
successors in interest, JUAN PEREZ and
MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ; JUAN
PEREZ, individually; MARGARITA LOPEZ
PEREZ, individually

1
2
3
4
5
6

Dated: December 1, 2015

JONATHAN D. MELROD, ESQ.

7

By /s/ Jonathan D. Melrod
JONATHAN D. MELROD
Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ESTATE OF
AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ, by and through
successors in interest, JUAN PEREZ and
MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ; JUAN
PEREZ, individually; MARGARITA LOPEZ
PEREZ, individually

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Dated: December 1, 2015

WILLIAM M. SIMPICH, JR., ESQ.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

By /s/ William M. Simpich
WILLIAM M. SIMPICH, JR.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ESTATE OF
AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ, by and through
successors in interest, JUAN PEREZ and
MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ; JUAN
PEREZ, individually; MARGARITA LOPEZ
PEREZ, individually

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
24
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2

Plaintiffs ESTATE OF AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ, by and through successors

3

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

4

and MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ hereby demand trial by jury.

5
6

Dated: December 1, 2015

7

CASILLAS & ASSOCIATES
By _/s/ Arnoldo Casillas
ARNOLDO CASILLAS
DENISSE O. GASTÉLUM
Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ESTATE OF
AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ, by and through
successors in interest, JUAN PEREZ and
MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ; JUAN
PEREZ, individually; MARGARITA LOPEZ
PEREZ, individually

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Dated: December 1, 2015

JONATHAN D. MELROD, ESQ.

16

By /s/ Jonathan D. Melrod
JONATHAN D. MELROD
Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ESTATE OF
AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ, by and through
successors in interest, JUAN PEREZ and
MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ; JUAN
PEREZ, individually; MARGARITA LOPEZ
PEREZ, individually

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Dated: December 1, 2015

WILLIAM M. SIMPICH, JR., ESQ.

24
25
26
27
28

By /s/ William M. Simpich
WILLIAM M. SIMPICH, JR.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ESTATE OF
AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ, by and through
successors in interest, JUAN PEREZ and
MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ; JUAN
25
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1

PEREZ, individually; MARGARITA LOPEZ
PEREZ, individually

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
26
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1
2
3
4
5

ARNOLDO CASILLAS, ESQ., SBN 158519
DENISSE O. GASTÉLUM, ESQ., SBN 282771
CASILLAS & ASSOCIATES
3500 W. Beverly Blvd.
Montebello, CA 90640
Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

6

JONATHAN D. MELROD, ESQ., SBN 136441
7 1313 Scheibel Ln.
Sebastopol, CA 95472
8 Tel: [phone]
9 Email: [e-mail]
10

WILLIAM M. SIMPICH, JR., ESQ., SBN 106672
th
11 1736 Franklin St., 10 Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
12 Tel: [phone]
13 Email: [e-mail]
14

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ESTATE OF AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ, by and through
15 successors in interest, JUAN PEREZ and MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ; JUAN
PEREZ, individually; MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ, individually
16
17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

19
20
21
22
23

ESTATE OF AMILCAR PEREZ
LOPEZ, by and through successors in
interest, JUAN PEREZ and
MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ;
JUAN PEREZ, individually;
MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ,
individually;

24

Plaintiffs,

25
26
27

vs.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 3:15-cv-01846 HSG
ORDER RE:
STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES
FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT

28
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES FOR LEAVE TO FILE
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5

CHIEF OF POLICE GREG SUHR;
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO; SAN FRANCISCO
POLICE DEPARTMENT; OFFICER
CRAIG TIFFE (Badge No. 1312);
OFFICER ERIC REBOLI (Badge No.
1651), and DOES 1 to 10,

6

Defendants.

7

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8
9

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING AND THE PARTIES HAVING STIPULATED:

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15
16
17

The Court further orders that Defendants shall be given thirty (30) days as of
the date the order is signed to file and serve a responsive pleading.
SO ORDERED.

18

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED:

19

Dated: December 4, 2015

20

By:

The Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2