Statler v. Inglewood: Complaint

Case 2:19-cv-10712-DMG-MRW Document 1 Filed 12/18/19 Page 1 of 22 Page ID #:1
1 Robert S. Brown, State Bar No. 187845

ROBERT S. BROWN, APC
2 714 W. Olympic Blvd., Ste. 450
Los Angeles, CA 90015
3
Telephone: (213) 745-6300
4 Facsimile: (213) 261-3906
5 John C. Taylor, State Bar No. 78389
Louanne Masry, State Bar No. 190559
6 TAYLOR & RING, LLP
1230 Rosecrans Ave, Suite 360
7 Manhattan Beach, California 90266
8 Telephone: (310) 209-4100
Facsimile: (310) 208-5052
9
Attorneys for Plaintiff: BRIAN STATLER SR. and STACEY MEADORS
10
11
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14
15
BRIAN STATLER SR., individually and ) CASE NO.
)
16 as Successor-In-Interest to BRIAN ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES:
STATLER JR and STACEY MEADORS, ) (1) Fourth Amendment—Excessive
17 )
individually and as Successor-In-Interest Force (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
) (2) Fourth Amendment—Detention and
18 to BRIAN STATLER JR. ) Arrest (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
) (3) Fourteenth Amendment—
19 ) Substantive Due Process (42
Plaintiff, ) U.S.C. § 1983)
20
vs. ) (4) Municipal Liability—
) Unconstitutional Custom or Policy
21 ) (5) Municipal Liability—Ratification
CITY OF INGLEWOOD, a public entity, ) (6) Municipal Liability—Failure to
22
and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, ) Train
) (7) Violation of Civil Rights—CCC §
23 ) 52.1 (The Bane Act)
Defendants. ) (8) Negligence
24 ) (9) Battery (Civil Code Section 43)
)
25 )
(DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL)
26
Plaintiff BRIAN STATLER SR., individually and as Successor-in-Interest to
27
BRIAN STATLER JR. and STACEY MEADORS, individually and as Successor-in-
28
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 Interest to BRIAN STATLER JR. (“PLAINTIFFS”) allege and complain against each
2 Defendant, as follows:
3 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4 1. This Court has original jurisdiction over this action for damages under the laws
5 Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the United States Constitution and common law principles, to
6 redress a deprivation under color of state law of rights, privileges, and immunities
7 secured to PLAINTIFFS and their decedent, by said status, and by the Fourth and
8 Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
9 2. Pursuant to U.S.C. §1331, this Court has original jurisdiction under the Civil
10 Rights Act 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and related common law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
11 1331, 1343.
12 3. Venue is proper in this Court because Defendants reside in, and all incidents,
13 events and occurrences giving rise to this action occurred in the County of Los Angeles,
14 California
15 4. PLAINTIFFS filed timely claims under Government Code § 911.2 et. al. and
16 bring pendant actions under state law.
17 PARTIES AND JURISDICTION
18 5. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff BRIAN STATLER SR., individually and
19 as Successor-in-Interest to decedent BRIAN STATLER JR., is a resident of the State of
20 Missouri. Plaintiff BRIAN STATLER SR. is the biological father of Decedent BRIAN
21 STATLER JR.
22 6. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff STACEY MEADORS., individually and
23 as Successor-in-Interest to decedent BRIAN STATLER JR., is a resident of the State of
24 Pennsylvania. Plaintiff STACEY MEADORS is the biological mother of Decedent
25 BRIAN STATLER JR.
26 7. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and allege, that at all relevant times, Defendant
27 CITY OF INGLEWOOD (hereinafter “the CITY” or “Inglewood”) was a public entity
28

1 and/or municipal corporation, duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the
2 laws of the State of California.
3 8. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and allege, that at all relevant times,
4 Defendants DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, were sworn police officers, sworn police
5 supervisors, managers, officials and/or employees of Defendant CITY OF
6 INGLEWOOD. Plaintiffs are further informed, believe, and allege, that at all relevant
7 times, Defendants DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, were acting in the course and scope or
8 their employment with Defendant CITY OF INGLEWOOD and are liable under the
9 doctrine of respondeat superior pursuant to Section 815.2 of the California Government
10 Code.
12 Defendants, DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, were employees of Defendant CITY OF
13 INGLEWOOD and/or DOES 1 through 10 and were responsible for implementing,
14 promulgating, maintaining, sanctioning, condoning, and/or ratifying policies,
15 procedures, practice, and/or customs, under which the other Defendants committed the
16 illegal or wrongful acts complained of. Defendants DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, were
17 acting in the course and scope or their employment with Defendant CITY OF
18 INGLEWOOD and are liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior pursuant to
19 Section 815.2 of the California Government Code.
20 10. The true names, identities or capacities, whether individual, associate,
21 corporate or otherwise, of Defendants DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them,
22 are unknown to Plaintiffs so said Defendants by such fictitious names. When the true
23 names, identities or capacities of such fictitiously designated Defendants are ascertained,
24 Plaintiffs will ask leave of Court to amend the complaint to assert the true names,
25 identities, and capacities, together with the proper charging allegations.
26 11. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and allege, that at all relevant times, that each
27 of the Defendants designated as a DOE is responsible, in some manner, for the events
28

1 and happenings referred to, and proximately caused the injuries and damages to
2 Plaintiffs as alleged.
4 Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, servants, employees, and joint venturers
5 of each other and of their co-Defendants, and were acting within the course and scope of
6 their employment, agency or joint venture, and that all acts, conduct or omissions were
7 subsequently ratified by them and the benefits accepted by them.
8 13. Plaintiffs name Defendants, and each of them, because Plaintiffs do not know
9 exactly from which of Defendants Plaintiffs are entitled to redress and whether the
10 injuries and damages to Plaintiff as alleged were caused by the combined negligence of
11 all Defendants or by the concurrent or successive and separate negligence of each
12 Defendant, and/or one or more of them. For that reason, Plaintiffs name all of
13 Defendants and will ask: for the determination of the liability of each and all of said
14 Defendants in this action; to what extent and what responsibility falls upon each of the
15 said Defendants; and, that judgment be awarded to Plaintiffs as against any or all of
16 Defendants, either jointly or severally, as may be found liable.
17 14. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and allege, that at all relevant times, each
18 Defendant was completely dominated and controlled by his/her/its co-Defendant and
19 each was the alter ego of the other as to the events set forth in this Complaint.
20 15. Each of the individual Defendants sued in this action is sued both in his/her
21 individual and personal capacity, as well as in his/her official capacity.
22 16. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants, and each of them, were acting
23 under color of the laws, statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs, and usages of the
24 State of California and County of Los Angeles, and under their official authority and
25 their policies, procedures, practices, and/or customs established by directives and/or
26 other acts of the City of Inglewood Police Department and Defendant CITY OF
27 INGLEWOOD and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive.
28

1 17. This is an action for damages and such other and further relief as may be
2 consistent with law pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to redress violations of the Decedent’s
3 rights protected by the United States, by persons action under color of state law.
4 18. This is also a survivor’s action and one for wrongful death brought pursuant
5 to the Constitution, statutes and/or common law of the State of California.
6
7 FACTS
8 19. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe that on March 27, 2019, their son,
9 BRIAN STATLER JR. (“DECEDENT”), was shot and killed by at least one Inglewood
10 Police Department DOE DEFENDANT officer at or around 315 S. Market Street in
11 Inglewood California. As a result of the gunshot(s) inflicted upon BRIAN STATLER
12 JR., he suffered fatal injuries. The present action arises from these facts.
13 20. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe that at the above-identified date and at
14 or near the above-identified location, Decedent was lawfully at that location when he
15 was shot by DOES 1-10. PLAINTIFFS are further informed and believe that DOES 1-
16 10 were employed and working within the course and scope of employment as an officer
17 for the Inglewood Police Department and Defendant CITY OF INGLEWOOD.
18 21. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe that DOES 1 through 10 unreasonably
19 assessed the circumstances presented to them, and violently confronted Decedent
20 without probable cause or reasonable suspicion that Decedent had committed a crime, or
21 would commit a crime in the future. PLAINTIFFS are further informed and believes
22 that, without warning, DOES 1-10 discharged department-issued firearm(s) at the
23 Decedent without provocation. Decedent suffered severe injuries, and ultimately death,
24 as a direct and proximate result of his gunshot wound(s).
25 22. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe that both prior to and during the time
26 in which he was shot, Decedent made no aggressive movements, no furtive gestures, and
27 no physical movements which would suggest to a reasonable officer that Decedent
28 intended to inflict substantial bodily harm against any individual. PLAINTIFFS are

1 further informed and believe that both prior to and during the time in which Defendants
2 DOES 1 through 10 shot Decedent, they were not faced with any circumstances that
3 would have led a reasonable officer to believe that Decedent posed the risk of death or
4 serious bodily injury to any person.
5 23. PLAINTIFFS are informed, believes, and alleges, that Defendants DOES 1
6 through 10, inclusive, agreed and conspired to justify and cover up the misconduct
7 alleged, among other things, preparing and filing false reports regarding the shooting
8 incident that led to the death of Decedent, and accusing Decedent of violations of laws.
9
10 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

11 FOURTH AMENDMENT-EXCESSIVE FORCE
12 (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
13 (AGAINST Defendant DOES 1-10)
14 24. PLANTIFFS re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation
15 contained in paragraphs 1 through 23.
16 25. The unjustified detention of DECEDENT by DOES 1-10 and subsequent
17 unjustified use of excessive force deprived DECEDENT of his right to be secure in his
18 person against unreasonable searches and seizures as guaranteed to him under the Fourth
19 Amendment to the United States Constitution and applied to state actors by the
20 Fourteenth Amendment.
21 26. DOES 1-10 acted under color of law.
22 27. DOES 1-10 used excessive force against DECEDENT including shooting and
23 killing DECEDENT.
24 28. As a result of the conduct of DOES 1-10, they are liable to PLAINTIFFS for
25 DECEDENT’S injuries and death, either because they were integral participants in the
26 excessive force or because they failed to intervene to prevent the violation(s).
27
28

1 29. The conduct of DOES 1-10 was willful, wanton, malicious and done with an
2 evil motive and intent and a reckless disregard for the rights and safety of DECEDENT
3 and therefore warrants the imposition of exemplary and punitive damages.
4 30. Accordingly, DOES 1-10 are each liable to PLAINTIFFS for compensatory
5 and punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. PLAINTIFFS bring this claim both
6 individually and as successors-in-interest to DECEDENT. Thus, they seek survival
7 damages, including for the nature and extent of DECEDENT’S injuries, pre-death pain
8 and suffering, emotional distress and loss of life and enjoyment of life, as well as
9 wrongful death damages under this claim. PLAINTIFFS also seek attorney’s fees.
10
11 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

12 FOURTH AMENDMENT-UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE-
13 DETENTION AND ARREST
14 (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
18 32. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees all
19 persons the right to be free from unreasonable detention in violation of their right to
20 privacy. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a private right of action for conduct which violates
21 this right.
23 34. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe that on March 27, 2019, DOES 1-10
24 contacted DECEDENT, who was not committing any crime. DOES 1-10 had no
25 objectively reasonable or specifically articulable factual basis to suspect that
26 DECEDENT was involved in the commission of any crime. Nor did DOES 1-10 have
27 any confirmation that DECEDENT had committed any crime, nor posed a threat to any
28

1 officer, and did not see DECEDENT in possession of any illegal objects, contraband or
2 weapons. Defendants had no probable cause to arrest DECEDENT.
3 35. DOES 1-10 had no reasonable suspicion to detain DECEDENT. The scope
4 and manner of DOES 1-10’s detention of DECEDENT was unreasonable.
5 36. The conduct of DOES 1-10 violated DECEDENT’S right to be free from
6 unreasonable search and seizure, which is guaranteed to him by the Fourth Amendment
7 to the United States Constitution and applied to state actors by the Fourteenth
8 Amendment.
9 37. DOES 1-10 are liable to PLAINTIFFS for the DECEDENT’S injuries and
10 death, either because they were integral participants in the wrongful detention and/or
11 arrest, or because they failed to intervene to prevent these violations.
12 38. The conduct of DOES 1-10 was willful, wanton, malicious and done with an
13 evil motive and intent and a reckless disregard for the rights and safety of DECEDENT
14 and therefore warrants the imposition of exemplary and punitive damages.
15 39. As a direct result of the unreasonable detention of DECEDENT,
16 PLAINTIFFS have suffered the loss of love, care, comfort, society, companionship,
17 assistance, protection, affection, moral support and support of DECEDENT.
18 40. As a direct result of the unreasonable detention of DECEDENT, he
19 experienced severe pain and suffering and loss of life for which he, by PLAINTIFFS
20 BRIAN STATLER SR. and STACEY MEADORS as DECEDENT’S Successors-in-
21 Interest, are entitled to recover damages. PLAINTIFFS bring this claim both
22 individually and as successors-in-interest to DECEDENT. Thus, they seek survival
23 damages, including for the nature and extent of DECEDENT’S injuries, pre-death pain
24 and suffering, emotional distress and loss of life and enjoyment of life, as well as
25 wrongful death damages under this claim. PLAINTIFFS also seek attorney’s fees.
26 ///
27
28

1 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2 FOURTHTEENTH AMENDMENT-SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
3 (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
8 43. Defendants, acting under color of state law, and without due process of law,
9 deprived PLAINTIFFS of their right to a familial relationship in such a manner as to
10 shock the conscience by seizing DECEDENT by use of unreasonable, unjustified and
11 deadly force and violence, causing injuries which resulted in DECEDENT’S death, all
12 without provocation and attempted to conceal their excessive use of force and hide the
13 true cause of DECEDENT’S demise to deprive PLAINTIFFS of their right to seek
14 redress, all in violation of rights, privileges and immunities secured by the Fourth and
15 Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
16 44. The actions of DOES 1-10 shock the conscience, in that they acted with
17 deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of DECEDENT and PLAINTIFFS,
18 and with a purpose to harm unrelated to any legitimate law enforcement objective.
19 45. As a result of the conduct of DOES 1-10, they are liable to PLAINTIFFS for
20 DECEDENT’S injuries and death, either because they were integral participants in the
21 excessive force or because they failed to intervene to prevent the violation(s).
22 46. PLAINTIFFS bring this claim individually and seek wrongful death damages
23 under this claim. PLAINTIFFS also seek attorney’s fees.
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///

1 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2 MUNICIPAL LIABILITY-UNCONSTITUTIONAL CUSTOM OR POLICY
3 (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
4 (AGAINST DEFENDANTS CITY OF INGLEWOOD and DOES 1-10)
7 48. On and before March 27, 2019, Defendants CITY OF INGLEWOOD and
8 DOE SUPERVISORS 1-10 deprived PLAINTIFFS of the rights and liberties secured to
9 her by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, in that
10 said Defendants and their supervising, and managerial employees, agents, and
11 representatives, acting with gross negligence and with reckless and deliberate
12 indifference to the rights and liberties of the public in general, of PLAINTIFFS, and of
13 persons in their class, situation and comparable position in particular, knowingly
14 maintained, enforced and applied an official policy recognized by the CITY OF
15 INGLEWOOD and the CITY OF INGLEWOOD POLICE DEPARTMENT.
17 50. DOES 1-10 acted pursuant to an expressly adopted official policy or a
18 longstanding practice or custom of Defendant CITY OF INGLEWOOD.
19 51. On information or belief, DOES 1-10 were not disciplined, reprimanded,
20 retrained, suspended or otherwise penalized in connection with DECEDENT’S death.
21 52. Defendants CITY OF INGLEWOOD and DOE SUPERVISORS 1-10
22 together with other CITY policymakers and supervisors maintained the following
23 unconstitutional customs, practices, and policies:
24 a. Using excessive force, including excessive deadly force;
25 b. Providing inadequate training regarding the use of deadly force;
26 c. Unreasonably and wrongfully detaining or arresting citizens;
27 d. Employing and retaining as Officers and other personnel, including
28 DOES 1-10, who Defendant CITY OF INGLEWOOD and DOE SUPERVISORS 1-10,
10

1 at all relevant times, knew or reasonably should have known had dangerous propensities
2 for abusing their authority and for mistreating citizens by failing to follow written City
3 of Inglewood Police Department polices and for using excessive force and for
4 wrongfully detaining and arresting citizens;
5 e. Inadequately supervising, training, controlling, assigning and
6 disciplining CITY OF INGLEWOOD POLICE DEPARTMENT officers and other
7 personnel, including DOES 1-10, who Defendants CITY OF INGLEWOOD and DOE
8 SUPERVISORS 1-10 each knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care, should have
9 known had dangerous propensities and character traits.
10 f. Maintaining grossly inadequate procedures for reporting, supervising,
11 investigating, reviewing, disciplining and controlling the intentional misconduct by
12 DOES 1-10.
13 g. Failing to adequately discipline DOES 1-10, for the above-referenced
14 categories of misconduct, including “slap on the wrist” discipline that is so slight as to
15 be out of proportion to the magnitude of the misconduct, and other inadequate discipline
16 that is tantamount to encouraging misconduct;
17 h. Announcing that unjustified shootings are “within policy” including
18 shootings that were later determined in court to be unconstitutional;
19 i. Encouraging, accommodating, or facilitating a “code of silence” in which
20 officers do not report other officers’ errors, misconduct or crimes. Pursuant to this code
21 of silence, if questioned about an incident of misconduct involving another officer, while
22 following the code, the deputy questioned will claim ignorance of the other officer’s
23 wrongdoing;
24 j. Maintaining a policy of inaction and an attitude of indifference towards
25 soaring numbers of police shootings, including by failing to discipline, retrain,
26 investigate, terminate, and recommend deputies for criminal prosecution who participate
27 in shootings of unarmed people;
28
11

1 k. Refusing to discipline, terminate or retrain the officers in shootings, even

2 where shootings were determined to be unconstitutional;
3 l. Having and maintaining an unconstitutional custom and practice of using
4 excessive force and covering up police misconduct. These customs and practices by
5 CITY OF INGLEWOOD and DOE SUPERVISORS 1-10 were condoned by
6 Defendants in deliberate indifference to the safety and rights of its civilians, including
7 PLAINTIFFS and DECEDENT; and,
8 53. By reason of the stated policies, customs and practices of Defendant CITY
9 OF INGLEWOOD and DOE SUPERVISORS 1-10, PLAINTIFFS experienced severe
10 pain and suffering and the loss of their son, for which they are entitled to recover
11 damages. The stated acts and omissions also caused DECEDENT’S pain and suffering,
12 loss of enjoyment of life, and death.
13 54. Defendants CITY OF INGLEWOOD and DOE SUPERVISORS 1-10
14 together with various other officials, whether named or unnamed, had either actual or
15 constructive knowledge of the different policies, practices and customs alleged in the
16 paragraphs above. Despite having knowledge as stated above, Defendants condoned,
17 tolerated and, through actions and omissions, ratified such policies. Defendants also
18 acted with deliberate indifference to both the foreseeable effects and consequences of
19 these policies and the constitutional rights of PLAINTIFFS, and other individuals
20 similarly situated.
21 55. By perpetuating, sanctioning, tolerating, and ratifying the outrageous conduct
22 and other wrongful acts, Defendants CITY OF INGLEWOOD and DOE
23 SUPERVISORS 1-10, acted with intentional, reckless, and callous disregard for the
24 well-being of DECEDENT and his constitutional as well as human rights. Defendants
25 CITY OF INGLEWOOD and DOE SUPERVISORS 1-10, and each of their actions were
26 willful, wanton, oppressive, malicious, fraudulent, and extremely offensive and
27 unconscionable to any person of normal sensibilities.
28
12

1 56. Furthermore, the policies, practices, and customs implemented, maintained

2 and still tolerated by Defendants COUNTY and DOE SUPERVISORS 1-10, were
3 affirmatively linked to, and were significantly influential forces behind PLAINTIFFS’
4 injuries.
5 57. PLAINTIFFS have been deprived of the life-ling love, companionship,
6 comfort, support, society, care and sustenance of DECEDENT, and will continue to be
7 so deprived for the remainder of their natural lives.
8 58. PLAINTIFFS bring this claim both individually and as successors-in-
9 interest to DECEDENT. Thus, they seek survival damages, including for the nature and
10 extent of DECEDENT’S injuries, pre-death pain and suffering, emotional distress and
11 loss of life and enjoyment of life, as well as wrongful death damages under this claim.
12 PLAINTIFFS also seek attorney’s fees.
13
14 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

15 MUNICIPAL LIABILITY-RATIFICATION
16 (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
20 60. DOES 1-10 acted under color of state law.
21 61. The acts of DOES 1-10 deprived DECEDENT and PLAINTIFFS of their
22 particular rights under the United States Constitution.
23 62. Upon and information and belief, the final policymaker, acting under color of
24 law, has a history of ratifying unreasonable uses of force, including deadly force.
25 63. Upon information and belief, a final policymaker, acting under color of law,
26 who had final policymaking authority concerning the acts of DOES 1-10 ratified the
27 individual defendants’ acts and bases for them. Upon information and belief, the final
28 policymaker knew and specifically approved of individual Defendants’ acts.
13

1 64. Upon information and belief a policymaker has determined (or will
2 determine) that the acts of DOES 1-10 were “within policy.”
3 65. By reason of the stated acts and omissions, PLAINTIFFS have been deprived
4 of the life-ling love, companionship, comfort, support, society, care and sustenance of
5 DECEDENT, and will continue to be so deprived for the remainder of their natural lives.
6 The stated acts and omissions also caused DECEDENT’S pain and suffering, loss of
7 enjoyment of life, and death.
8 66. Accordingly, Defendant CITY OF INGLEWOOD and DOES 1-10 are liable
9 to PLAINTIFFS for compensatory damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
10 67. PLAINTIFFS bring this claim both individually and as successors-in-interest
11 to DECEDENT. Thus, they seek survival damages, including for the nature and extent
12 of DECEDENT’S injuries, pre-death pain and suffering, emotional distress and loss of
13 life and enjoyment of life, as well as wrongful death damages under this claim.
15
16 SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

17 MUNICIPAL LIABILITY-FAILURE TO TRAIN
18 (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
22 69. DOES 1-10 acted under color of state law.
23 70. The acts of DOES 1-10 deprived DECEDENT and PLAINTIFFS of their
24 particular rights under the United States Constitution.
25 ///
26 71. On information and belief, Defendant CITY OF INGLEWOOD failed to
27 properly and adequately train DOES 1-10, including but not limited to, with regard to
28 the use of physical force, less than lethal force, and lethal force.
14

1 72. The training policies of Defendant CITY OF INGLEWOOD were not

2 adequate to train its officers to handle the usual and recurring situations with which they
3 must deal, including the use of physical force, less than lethal force, and lethal force.
4 73. Defendant CITY OF INGLEWOOD was deliberately indifferent to the
5 obvious consequences of its failure to train its officers adequately.
6 74. The failure of Defendant CITY OF INGLEWOOD to provide adequate
7 training caused the deprivation of PLAINTIFF’S rights by DOES 1-10; that is,
8 Defendants’ failure to train is so closely related to the deprivation of PLAINTIFFS’
9 rights as to be the moving force that caused the ultimate injury.
10 75. By reason of the stated acts and omissions, PLAINTIFFS have been deprived
11 of the life-ling love, companionship, comfort, support, society, care and sustenance of
12 DECEDENT, and will continue to be so deprived for the remainder of their natural lives.
13 The stated acts and omissions also caused DECEDENT’S pain and suffering, loss of
14 enjoyment of life, and death.
15 76. Accordingly, Defendant CITY OF INGLEWOOD and DOES 1-10 are liable
16 to PLAINTIFFS for compensatory damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
18 to DECEDENT. Thus, they seek survival damages, including for the nature and extent
19 of DECEDENT’S injuries, pre-death pain and suffering, emotional distress and loss of
20 life and enjoyment of life, as well as wrongful death damages under this claim.
22 ///
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
15

1 SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2 VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS
3 (California Civil Code §52.1)
5 78. Plaintiffs re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation
7 79. This action is brought pursuant to California Civil Code Section 52.1. This
8 cause of action is to redress the deprivation, under color of statute, ordinance, regulation,
9 policy, custom, practice or usage, of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the
10 Civil Code including, but not limited to, the right to be free from violence, threats of
11 violence and unlawful seizure.
12 80. California Civil Code § 52.1 (the Bane Act) prohibits any person from using
13 violent acts or threatening to commit violent acts in retaliating against another person for
14 exercising that person’s constitutional rights. Conduct that violates the Fourth
15 Amendment violates the Bane Act.
16 81. In shooting and killing DECEDENT, DOES 1-10 violated DECEDENT’S
17 right to be free from violence, threats of violence, and unlawful seizure as guaranteed to
18 him by California Civil Code § 52.1.
19 82. On information and belief, PLAINTIFFS allege, that on or about March 27,
20 2019, DOES 1-10 assaulted and battered DECEDENT, as described, all of which
21 constituted excessive, unjustifiable, and unreasonable force in violation of
22 DECEDENT’S civil rights, including his right to be free from violence, threats of
23 violence, and unlawful seizure.
24 83. Defendants’ stated misconduct, while acting within the course and scope of
25 their duties for the CITY OF INGLEWOOD, constituted interference, and attempted
26 interference, by threats, intimidation and coercion, with DECEDENT’S peaceable
27 exercise and enjoyment of rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United
28 States and State of California, in violation of California Civil Code § 52.1.
16

1 84. The conduct of Defendants was a substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFFS’

2 harms, losses, injuries and damages.
3 85. CITY OF INGLEWOOD is vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of DOES
4 1-10 pursuant to section 815.2(a) of the California Government Code, which provides
5 that a public entity is liable for the injuries caused by its employees within the scope of
6 employment if the employee’s act would subject him or her to liability.
7 86. Defendants 1-10 are vicariously liable under California law and the doctrine
8 of respondeat superior.
9 87. The conduct of Defendants was malicious, wanton, oppressive, and
10 accomplished with a conscious disregard for DECEDENT’S and PLAINTIFFS’ rights,
11 justifying an award of exemplary and punitive damages as to DOES 1-10.
13 to DECEDENT, and seeks both survival damages, including any economic losses of
14 DECEDENT, and wrongful death damages under this claim, as well as attorney’s fees.
15
16 EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

17 NEGLIGENCE—WRONGFUL DEATH AND SURVIVAL
18 (C.C.P. §377.60 and §377.61)
19 (AGAINST CITY OF INGLEWOOD and DOES 1-10)
20 89. PLAINTIFFS re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every
21 allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 88.
22 90. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and allege, that Defendants, and
23 each of them, had a duty to exercise reasonable and ordinary care in the operation of
24 their firearms, and in the selection and execution of police procedures related to the
25 arrest or detention of persons who are mentally disabled or not mentally disabled, yet
26 nevertheless failed to exercise reasonable and ordinary care in committing the acts
27 alleged, by actions and inactions which include, but are not limited to, negligently
28 shooting and killing DECEDENT, negligently failing to determine the fact that
17

1 DECEDENT posed no threat of physical harm to any person when he was shot,
2 negligently inflicting physical injury upon DECEDENT as described, and negligently
3 employing deadly force against DECEDENT when it was unnecessary and unlawful.
4 All of these negligent acts proximately caused DECEDENT’S injuries and death.
5 91. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe that the subject incident was
6 additionally caused by the negligent deployment of Defendants CITY OF
7 INGLEWOOD and/or DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and the failure of these
8 supervisors and employees to develop a tactically sound plan for detaining DECEDENT
9 while investigating DECEDENT’S reason(s) for being at the location, to determine if
10 DECEDENT was a danger to anyone present at the location. PLAINTIFFS are further
11 informed and believe that, as a result, Defendants’ negligent actions and negligent
12 decisions led to poor decisions regarding numerous tactical issues including (but not
13 limited to) failure to properly investigate DECEDENT’S reason(s) for being at the
14 location, failure to determine if any of the people present at the location were in danger,
15 and negligent assessment and reassessment of the nonexistent threat presented by
16 DECEDENT.
17 92. As a direct and proximate cause of the acts alleged, DECEDENT suffered
18 severe bodily injury and death. As a result, PLAINTIFFS have been deprived of the
19 love, affection, care, society, service, comfort, support, right to support, companionship,
20 solace or moral support, as well as other benefits and assistance of decedent. Plaintiff
21 BRIAN STATLER SR. has also incurred burial and funeral expenses. PLAINTIFFS
22 were damaged as a proximate result of the alleged acts and omissions in an amount and
23 manner to be shown according to proof at trial.
24 93. The conduct of Defendants was a substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFFS’
25 harms, losses, injuries and damages.
28
18

3 95. As an actual and proximate result of Defendants’ negligence, and the
4 resulting death of DECEDENT, PLAINTIFFS have sustained pecuniary loss resulting
5 from the loss of companionship, comfort, support, society, care, sustenance and services
6 of DECEDENT, and will continue to be so deprived for the remainder of their natural
7 lives, in an amount according to proof at trial.
8 96. As a further actual and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence,
9 PLAINTIFF BRIAN STATLER SR. incurred funeral and burial expenses, in an amount
10 according to proof at trial.
11 97. Pursuant to California C.C.P §§ 377.30, 377.60 and 377.61, PLAINTIFFS
12 have brought this action, and claims both survival damages, namely any economic losses
13 of DECEDENT, and wrongful death damages from Defendants for the wrongful death of
14 DECEDENT, and the resulting injuries.
15
16 NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

17 BATTERY—WRONGFUL DEATH AND SURVIVAL
18 (C.C.P. §377.60 and §377.61)
19 (AGAINST CITY OF INGLEWOOD and DOES 1-10)
20 98. PLAINTIFFS re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation
22 99. In committing the acts alleged, DECEDENT was violently, wrongfully, and
23 intentionally battered by Defendants, and each of them, by firing live ammunition at
24 DECEDENT with the intent to inflict serious and bodily injury.
25 100. Both prior to and during the time in which DECEDENT was shot,
26 DECEDENT did not consent to the use of force used upon him. In committing the acts
27 described, Defendants subjected DECEDENT to unreasonable harm to his person, in
28 violation of California Civil Code Section 43.
19

1 101. As a direct and proximate cause of the acts alleged, DECEDENT suffered
2 severe bodily injury and death. As a result, PLAINTIFFS have been deprived of the
3 love, affection, care, society, service, comfort, support, right to support, companionship,
4 solace or moral support, as well as other benefits and assistance of decedent. Plaintiff
5 BRIAN STATLER SR. has also incurred burial and funeral expenses. PLAINTIFFS
6 were damaged as a proximate result of the alleged acts and omissions in an amount and
7 manner to be shown according to proof at trial.
12 103. The alleged acts of the individual Defendants were willful, wanton,
13 malicious, and oppressive, and justify the award of exemplary damages as against the
14 individual defendants named.
16 to DECEDENT, and seeks both survival damages, including any economic losses of
17 DECEDENT, and wrongful death damages under this claim.
18
19 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

20 WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS pray for judgment against Defendants CITY OF
21 INGLEWOOD and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, as follows:
22 1. For an award of general and special damages according to proof;
23 2. For exemplary damages against the individual defendants in their individual
24 capacities according to proof (as to the first, second, third, seventh, and ninth claims
25 only);
26 3. For attorney’s fees according to proof (as to the first, second, third, fourth,
27 fifth, sixth and seventh claims only);
28 ///
20

1 4. For costs of suit incurred herein; and

2 5. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
3
4
Dated: December 18, 2019 ROBERT STANFORD BROWN, APC
TAYLOR & RING, LLP
5
7 /s/ Robert S. Brown

By: _________________________
8
Robert S. Brown, Esq.
9 John C. Taylor, Esq.
10
Attorneys for Plaintiffs BRIAN
STATLER SR. and STACEY
11 MEADORS
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
21

1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2 Plaintiffs BRIAN STATLER SR., individually and as Successor-in-Interest to
3 BRIAN STATLER JR., and STACEY MEADORS, individually and as Successor-In-
4 Interest to BRIAN STATLER JR., request that this action be determined by trial by jury.
5
6
Dated: December 18, 2019 ROBERT STANFORD. BROWN, APC
TAYLOR & RING, LLP
7
9 /s/ Robert S. Brown

By: __________________________
10
Robert S. Brown, Esq.
11 John C. Taylor, Esq.
12
Attorneys for Plaintiffs BRIAN
STATLER SR. and STACEY
13 MEADORS
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
22

Statler v. Inglewood: Complaint

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Statler v. Inglewood: Complaint

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Case 2:19-cv-10712-DMG-MRW Document 1 Filed 12/18/19 Page 1 of 22 Page ID #:1

1 Robert S. Brown, State Bar No. 187845

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

10 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

11 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 k. Refusing to discipline, terminate or retrain the officers in shootings, even

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 56. Furthermore, the policies, practices, and customs implemented, maintained

14 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

16 SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 72. The training policies of Defendant CITY OF INGLEWOOD were not

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 84. The conduct of Defendants was a substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFFS’

16 EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

16 NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

19 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 4. For costs of suit incurred herein; and

7 /s/ Robert S. Brown

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

9 /s/ Robert S. Brown

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen