Wroth et al v. City of Rohnert Park et al

Filing 38

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 37 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Stipulation and [Proposed] Order For Plaintiffs to File a First Amended Complaint for Damages filed by Marni Wroth, Christopher Wroth. Amended Pleadings due by 6/28/2018. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on June 18, 2018. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/18/2018)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

John H. Scott, SBN 72578
Lizabeth N. de Vries, SBN 227215
SCOTT LAW FIRM
1388 Sutter Street, Suite 715
San Francisco, California 94109
Tel.: [phone] / Fax: [phone]
E-mails: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
Izaak D. Schwaiger, SBN 267888
130 Petaluma Avenue, Suite 1A
Sebastopol, CA 95472
Tel. [phone] / Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs CHRISTOPHER WROTH
And MARNI WROTH

10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SCOTT LAW FIRM

1388 S UTTER S TREET , S UITE 715
S AN F RANCISCO , CA 94109

11

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

CHRISTOPHER WROTH and MARNI
WROTH,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 3:17-cv-05339-JST
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
FOR PLAINTIFFS TO FILE A FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

v.
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK, DAVID SITTIGWATTSON, SEAN HUOT, and DOES 1-25,
inclusive.
Defendants.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-1STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR PLAINTIFFS
TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1

WHEREAS Plaintiffs Christopher Wroth and Marni Wroth filed a complaint on

2

September 14, 2017, Case. No. 3:17-cv-05339-JST, which alleged constitutional violations

3

relating to the death of their son, Branch Wroth, while in the custody of the defendants; and

4

WHEREAS during the course of discovery, Plaintiffs identified Officer Matt Huot,

5

Officer Mike Werle, and Sergeant Eric Matzen as integral participants in these constitutional

6

violations;

7

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto, through their attorneys

8

of record, that Plaintiffs CHRISTOPHER WROTH and MARNI WROTH may file a First

9

Amended Complaint, attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

10

SCOTT LAW FIRM

1388 S UTTER S TREET , S UITE 715
S AN F RANCISCO , CA 94109

11

Dated: June 14, 2018

SCOTT LAW FIRM

12

By: /s/John Houston Scott
John Houston Scott
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

13
14
15

Dated: June 14, 2018

SCHWAIGER LAW FIRM

16
By: /s/Izaak D. Schwaiger
Izaak D. Schwaiger
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

17
18
19

GEARY SHEA O’DONNELL
GRATTAN & MITCHEL, P.C.

Dated: June 14, 2018

20
21

By: /s/Raymond J. Fullerton
Raymond J. Fullerton
Attorneys for Defendants

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR PLAINTIFFS
TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

ELECTRONIC CASE FILING ATTESTATION

1
2
3
4
5

I, John Houston Scott, am the ECF user whose identification and password are being used
to file the foregoing documents. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5.1(i), I hereby attest that
concurrence in the filing of these documents has been obtained from each of its signatories.

Dated: June 14, 2018

SCOTT LAW FIRM

6
7

By: /s/John Houston Scott
John Houston Scott
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

8
9
10

SCOTT LAW FIRM

1388 S UTTER S TREET , S UITE 715
S AN F RANCISCO , CA 94109

11
12
13

[PROPOSED] ORDER
Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefore, the Court

14

GRANTS plaintiffs CHRISTOPHER WROTH AND MARNI WROTH leave to file a First

15

Amended Complaint within ten (10) calendars days of the date of this Order.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

June 18, 2018
Dated: ________________

___________________________________
THE HONORABLE JON S. TIGAR

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR PLAINTIFFS
TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Exhibit 1

1
2
3
4
5

John Houston Scott (SBN 72578)
Lizabeth N. de Vries (SBN 227215)
SCOTT LAW FIRM
1388 Sutter Street, Suite 715
San Francisco, CA 94109
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

6
7
8
9
10

SCOTT LAW FIRM

1388 S UTTER S TREET , S UITE 715
S AN F RANCISCO , CA 94109

11

Izaak D. Schwaiger (SBN 267888)
130 Petaluma Avenue, Suite 1A
Sebastopol, CA 95472
Tel. [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs CHRISTOPHER WROTH
AND MARNI WROTH

12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15
16

CHRISTOPHER WROTH and MARNI
WROTH,

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

27

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
DAMAGES

Plaintiffs,
v.

(42 U.S.C. § 1983)

CITY OF ROHNERT PARK, DAVID
SITTIG-WATTSON, SEAN HUOT, MATT
HUOT, MIKE WERLE, ERIC MATZEN and
DOES 1-25,

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS CHRISTOPHER WROTH and MARNI WROTH complain of Defendants
and alleges as follows:

25
26

Case No. 3:17-cv-05399-JST

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.

This action arises under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Jurisdiction is conferred by virtue of 28

U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.

28
-1FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

SCOTT LAW FIRM

1388 S UTTER S TREET , S UITE 715
S AN F RANCISCO , CA 94109

11

2.

The conduct alleged herein occurred in Sonoma County. Venue of this action lies

in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
PARTIES
3.

Plaintiffs Christopher Wroth and Marni Wroth reside in Mount Shasta, County of

Siskiyou, California. They are the parents of the deceased, Branch Wroth.
4.

Defendant City of Rohnert Park is a public entity situated in the State of California

and organized under the laws of the State of California.
5.

Defendant David Sittig-Wattson is and was a police officer employed by the City

of Rohnert Park. He acted in the course and scope of his employment, and under color of state
law, at all times mentioned herein.
6.

Defendant Sean Huot is and was a police officer employed by the City of Rohnert

12

Park. He acted in the course and scope of his employment, and under color of state law, at all

13

times mentioned herein.

14

7.

Defendant Matt Huot is and was a police officer employed by the City of Rohnert

15

Park. He acted in the course and scope of his employment, and under color of state law, at all

16

times mentioned herein.

17

8.

Defendant Mike Werle is and was a police officer employed by the City of

18

Rohnert Park. He acted in the course and scope of his employment, and under color of state law,

19

at all times mentioned herein.

20

9.

Defendant Eric Matzen is and was a sergeant employed by the City of Rohnert

21

Park. He acted in the course and scope of his employment, and under color of state law, at all

22

times mentioned herein.

23

10.

Plaintiffs also do not presently know the true names and capacities of defendants

24

DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, and therefore sues them by these fictitious names. Plaintiffs are

25

informed and believe that DOES 1 through 25, and each of them, were responsible in some

26

manner for the acts or omissions alleged herein. Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend this

27

Complaint to add their true names and capacities when they have been ascertained.

28
-2FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1
2

11.

acted under color of authority and/or under color of state law, and, in concert with each other.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

SCOTT LAW FIRM

1388 S UTTER S TREET , S UITE 715
S AN F RANCISCO , CA 94109

11
12
13
14
15

In doing the acts and/or omissions alleged herein, defendants and each of them

STATEMENT OF FACTS
12.

On May 12, 2017, Officer Sittig-Wattson was called to the Budget Inn in the City

of Rohnert Park to check on the welfare of Branch Wroth, who was reportedly acting strangely.
Upon contact, Branch Wroth appeared to be and was in need of medical treatment. Officer SittigWattson enquired of Branch what was the matter. Branch responded, “I’m having a meltdown.”
Branch was in an obvious state of mental and emotional distress, but remained passive and
cooperative. Instead of providing or obtaining emergency medical care for Branch, Officer SittigWattson elected to perform a warrant check. He discovered an outstanding warrant for Mr. Wroth
and determined to take him into police custody rather than address his obvious medical needs.
This encounter was recorded by body camera video which is in the possession of the parties.
13.

Officer Sean Huot arrived as backup. The officers attempted to handcuff Mr.

Wroth for the purpose of taking him into custody. A struggle ensued and Officer Sittig-Wattson
began punching and elbowing Branch repeatedly. Both officers began kneeing Branch in his

16

abdomen. Officer Sittig-Wattson then fired his taser into Branch’s back as Mr. Wroth called out,

17

“Help me, help me!” The two officers forced Branch to the floor and Officer Sittig-Wattson

18
19
20

delivered a second application of the taser to his body. In less than a minute Branch was tasered
seven times.
14.

Officer Sean Huot placed handcuffs around one of Branch’s wrists as he lay

21

facedown on the ground. About that time Officers Matt Huot, Mike Werle, and Sgt. Matzen

22

arrived on scene and handcuffed Branch behind his back. Officer Matt Huot kneeled on top of

23

Branch’s shoulders. Officer Wattson called out, “Hit him,” and Officer Werle began beating

24

Branch with his service flashlight as Mr. Wroth called out, “Mom! Dad!”

25
26

15.

Sgt. Matzen forced Branch’s legs into a figure-four pain compliance hold as he lay

on the floor face down and handcuffed with the weight of the other officers crushing his upper

27
28
-3FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1
2
3
4
5

body. Branch cried for help as his face was forced straight down into the carpet. He cried out, “I
can’t breathe!” The five officers continued to suffocate him to death.
16.

As a result of said acts and omissions, Branch Wroth died while in the custody and

under the control of Defendants David Sittig-Wattson, Sean Huot, Matt Huot, Mike Werle, and
Eric Matzen.

6
STATEMENT OF DAMAGES

7
12.

As a result of the acts and/or omissions of Defendants, and each of them,

8
Plaintiffs suffered the loss of the familial association of their son, including society, comfort, and
9
affection, in amounts to be determined according to proof.
10
13.

As a result of the acts and/or omissions of Defendants, and each of them, the

SCOTT LAW FIRM

1388 S UTTER S TREET , S UITE 715
S AN F RANCISCO , CA 94109

11
Plaintiffs suffered the loss of the services and economic support of their son in amounts to be
12
determined according to proof.
13
14.
14
15
16
17
18

The acts and/or omissions of Defendants David Sittig-Wattson, Sean Huot, Matt

Huot, Mike Werle, and Eric Matzen were willful, wanton, reckless, malicious, oppressive and/or
done with a conscious or reckless disregard for the rights of the decedent and the plaintiffs, who
seek punitive and exemplary damages against these individuals according to proof.
15.

Plaintiffs have retained private counsel to represent them in this matter and are

entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees.

19
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983)
[DEPRIVATION OF FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIP]

20
21
22
23

16.

Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference as though fully set forth

herein all prior paragraphs of this Complaint.

24
25
26
27

17.

By and through the acts and omissions alleged herein, Defendants David Sittig-

Wattson, Sean Huot, Matt Huot, Mike Werle, Eric Matzen, and DOES 1-25, deprived Plaintiffs of
the familial relationship with their son thereby violating said Plaintiffs’ rights under the First and

28
-4FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1

Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The defendants acted with deliberate

2

indifference and/or a purpose to harm Branch Wroth thus causing his death.

3

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.

4

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

5

[42 U.S.C. §1983 – RATIFICATION AGAINST CITY OF ROHNERT PARK]

6

18.

8

SCOTT LAW FIRM

1388 S UTTER S TREET , S UITE 715
S AN F RANCISCO , CA 94109

11
12

Brian Masterson, Director of Public Safety, had final policymaking authority for

the City of Rohnert Park concerning the acts police officers within his chain of command.

9
10

All allegations set forth in this Complaint are hereby incorporated by reference.

19.

7

20.

Plaintiffs allege on information and belief that Masterson ratified the acts and

omissions of Defendants David Sittig-Wattson, Sean Huot, Matt Huot, Mike Werle, and Eric
Matzen. He reviewed and specifically approved their acts and omissions alleged herein and the
reasons for them.

13
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.

14

PRAYER

15
1.

For compensatory damages according to proof;

17

2.

For general damages according to proof;

18

3.

For an award of punitive and exemplary damages against individual defendants

16

19

according to proof;

20

4.

For costs and attorneys’ fees; and

5.

For such other relief as the Court may deem proper.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

//

28
-5FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1
2

JURY TRIAL DEMAND
Plaintiffs hereby request a jury trial on all issues so triable.

3
4
5

Dated: June 14, 2018

SCOTT LAW FIRM
/s/ John Houston Scott
John Houston Scott
Attorney for Plaintiff

Dated: June 14, 2018

SCHWAIGER LAW FIRM
/s/ Izaak David Schwaiger
Izaak David Schwaiger
Attorney for Plaintiff

6
7
8
9
10

SCOTT LAW FIRM

1388 S UTTER S TREET , S UITE 715
S AN F RANCISCO , CA 94109

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-6FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES