Anni Ma v. Los Angeles Police Department - Free The Nipple Lawsuit

Case 2:16-cv-05819-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 1 of 34 Page ID #:1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
JOHN R. COGORNO, SBN 63966

Attorney at Law
14121 Beach Boulevard
Westminster, California 92683
Tel. 714.892.2936
Fax. 714.892.5806
Email: cogorno@msn.com
R. ALLEN BAYLIS, SBN 194496
Attorney at Law
9042 Garfield Avenue
Suite 202
Huntington Beach, CA 92646
Tel. 714.962-0915
Fax. 714.962-0930
Email: rab@baylislaw.com
9
Attorneys for Plaintiff
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
ANNI MA,
13
Plaintiff,
14
vs.
15
16
17
18
CITY OF LOS ANGELES; CITY OF LOS

ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT ;
OFFICER WESTON #38719, Individually and
in his Official Capacity as Police Officer;
OFFICER BERMUDEZ #38268, Individually
and in his Official Capacity as a Police Officer;
and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive,
19
20
21
Defendants.
_____________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No: 2:16-cv-5819

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1.
2.
3.
4.
22
5.
23
6.
24
7.
25
8.
26
9.
Violation of Civil Rights 42

U.S.C. 1983 (Unlawful Seizure
of Person)
U.S.C. 1983 (Unreasonable and
Excessive Force, Due Process and
Equal Protection)
U.S.C. 1983 (Right to Peaceful
Association, Assembly, Freedom
of S peech and Petition
Government)
U.S.C. 1983 (Unconstitutional
Municipal Customs and Policies)
False Arrest/False Imprisonment
(Under California State Law)
Assault and Battery (Under
California State Law)
Violation of California Civil Code
51.7 (Ralph Civil Rights Acts)
Violation of California Civil Code
52.1 (Bane Civil Rights Act)
Negligence
27
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
28
-1Complaint For Damages
Plaintiff hereby brings this civil rights action against the CITY OF LOS ANGELES;
CITY OF LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT; OFFICER WESTON #38719,
Individually and in his Official Capacity as a Police Officer; OFFICER BERMUDEZ
#38268, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a Police Officer; and DOES 1 through
10, Inclusive. Except as to allegations that pertain to Plaintiff and her counsel, Plaintiff
alleges the following on information and belief:
7
8
INTRODUCTION
1.
Plaintiff brings this action for money damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983
and 1988, California Civil Code 51.7 and 52.1, and the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth
10
Amendments of the United States Constitution for false arrest/imprisonment, assault and
11
battery and negligence against Defendants CITY OF LOS ANGELES; CITY OF LOS
12
ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT; OFFICER WESTON #38719, Individually and in
13
his Official Capacity as a Police Officer; OFFICER BERMUDEZ #38268, Individually and
14
in his Official Capacity as a Police Officer; and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive. It is herein
15
alleged that Defendant Officers and each of them, including DOES 1 through 10 and/or other
16
unknown officers, deputies or individuals employed by Defendants CITY and LAPD,
17
violated Plaintiff's civil rights, including freedom to assemble and the right to free speech
18
and petition government when they intentionally advanced on Plaintiff and arrested Plaintiff
19
who was lawfully located on a public sidewalk located near the Wiltern Theater in the City
20
of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, State of California.
21
2.
The actions of Defendants and each of them, along with the Defendant
22
Officers application of unnecessary, unreasonable and excessive force and then arresting
23
Plaintiff, was a knowing, willful and unlawful act that terminated Plaintiffs freedom of
24
movement. Plaintiff was forcibly arrested and handcuffed and taken to the ground which
25
constituted unnecessary, unreasonable and/or excessive use of force. This unnecessary,
26
unreasonable and/or excessive force and/or show of authority terminated and restrained
27
Plaintiffs freedom of movement through the means intentionally applied which amounted
28
to an unconstitutional seizure of Plaintiff along with interfering with the personal liberty of
Plaintiff without legal cause, authority or excuse violating Plaintiffs rights under the First,
Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution among other
violations.
5
6
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3.
This Court has "federal question" jurisdiction over this action, applicable to
the states under the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States
Constitution.
Jurisdiction in this Court is therefore proper under 28 U.S.C. 1331.
10
4.
This is a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1986.
This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1343(4) for violations of the
11
1871 Civil Rights Enforcement Act, as amended, including 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Court has
12
supplemental jurisdiction for Plaintiffs State law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C 1367(a) and
13
Mine Workers vs. Gibbs (1966) 383 U.S. 715.
14
5.
The acts and omissions complained of occurred in the City of Los Angeles,
15
County of Los Angeles, State of California. Therefore, venue lies in the Central District of
16
California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391.
17
PARTIES
18
Plaintiff:
19
6.
Plaintiff ANNI MA (hereinafter MA) is and at all times herein mentioned
20
a citizen of the United States and a legal resident of the State of California, County of Los
21
Angeles, City of Inglewood.
22
Defendants:
23
7.
Defendant CITY OF LOS ANGELES (hereinafter CITY), is and was at
24
all times herein mentioned, a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under and
25
by virtue of the laws of the State of California and is the public employer of the police
26
officers named herein as Defendants in this action.
27
8.
Defendant CITY OF LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT,
28
(hereinafter LAPD), is and was at all times herein mentioned, a public entity, duly
organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California and is the
public employer of the police officers named herein as Defendants in this action. Said
Defendant CITY OF LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT can be sued separately
under Shaw v. State of California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control 788 F.2d 600
605 (9 th Cir. 1986; Doggett v. United States 858 F.2d 555, 561 (9 th Cir. 1988); Streit v.
County of Los Angeles 236 F.3d 552, 557 (9 th Cir. 2001).
9.
Defendant OFFICER WESTON #38719 (hereinafter "WESTON), is and
was at all relevant times, a Police Officer employed by Defendants CITY and LAPD and
10
operated within the borders and boundaries of the City of Los Angeles in his official
11
capacity. Defendant WESTON acted within the course and scope of his employment as a
12
sworn Police Officer and responsible for among other things, implementation of the customs,
13
policies, practices and/or procedures and was acting under color of state law as an employee,
14
agent, and representative of Defendants CITY and LAPD.
15
10.
Plaintiff sues Defendant WESTON in his individual and official capacity as
16
an active participant in, or alternatively, as a by-standing official who willingly failed to
17
intervene to protect Plaintiff from, the violations alleged herein.
18
11.
Defendant OFFICER BERMUDEZ #32628 (hereinafter "BERMUDEZ "),
19
is and was at all relevant times, a Police Officer employed by Defendants CITY and LAPD
20
and operated within the borders and boundaries of the City of Los Angeles in his official
21
capacity. Defendant BERMUDEZ acted within the course and scope of his employment as
22
a sworn Police Officer and responsible for among other things, implementation of the
23
customs, policies, practices and/or procedures and was acting under color of state law as an
24
employee, agent, and representative of Defendants CITY and LAPD.
25
12.
Plaintiff sues Defendant BERMUDEZ in his individual and official capacity
26
as an active participant in, or alternatively, as a by-standing official who willingly failed to
27
intervene to protect Plaintiff from the violations alleged herein.
28
13.
Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and/or capacities of Defendants sued

herein as DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, and therefore sue said Defendants by such fictitious
names. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this Complaint to allege said Defendants true
names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore
alleges that DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, are legally responsible and liable for acts and/or
omissions causing claimed injuries and damages hereinafter set forth, and that each of said
Defendants proximately caused said incidents, injuries and damages by reason of their
negligence, breach of duty, negligent supervision, management or control, violation of
constitutional and legal rights, or by reason of other personal, vicarious or imputed
negligence, fault, or breach of duty, whether severally or jointly, or whether based upon
10
agency, employment, or control or upon any other act or omission. Plaintiff will ask leave
11
to amend this complaint to insert further charging allegations when such facts are
12
ascertained.
13
14.
Each of the Defendants, including DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, caused and
14
is responsible for the below-described unlawful conduct and resulting injuries by, among
15
other things, personally participating in the unlawful conduct or acting jointly or conspiring
16
with others who did so, by authorizing, acquiescing in or setting in motion policies, plans or
17
actions that led to the unlawful conduct, by failing to take action to prevent the unlawful
18
conduct; by failing and refusing, with deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs rights, to initiate
19
and maintain adequate training and supervision; and by ratifying the unlawful conduct that
20
occurred by agents and officers under their direction and control, including failing to take
21
remedial or disciplinary action.
22
15.
In doing the acts alleged herein, Defendants and each of them, including DOES
23
1 through 10, Inclusive, acted within the course and scope of their employment for
24
Defendants CITY and LAPD.
25
16.
In doing the acts and/or omissions alleged herein, Defendants and each of
26
them, including DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, acted under color of authority and/or color
27
of law.
28
17.
In doing the acts and/or omissions alleged herein, Defendants and each of
them, including DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, acted as the agent, servant, employee and/or
in concert with each of said other Defendants.
18.
Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that Defendant CITY
is an incorporated municipality doing business in the State of California with its principal
place of business in Los Angeles, and the employer of the individual officers named as
Defendants, including DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive in this action.
19.
Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that Defendant LAPD
is a public entity existing within the State of California, County of Los Angeles. Plaintiff is
informed and believes that Defendant LAPD is and was the official police agency for the
10
Defendant CITY at all times mentioned herein, and is the employer of the individual officers
11
named as Defendants, including DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, in this action.
12
20.
As alleged more fully below, the Defendants CITY and LAPD caused Plaintiff
13
injury through their policies, practices and/or customs that ratify the LAPD Officers abuse
14
and misuse of police power and use of unnecessary, unreasonable and/or excessive force.
15
The Defendants CITY and LAPD knew or should have known, that their Officers were not
16
properly trained and routinely abused and misused their police power to unlawfully seize
17
Plaintiff and use unnecessary, unreasonable and/or excessive force. Yet, the Defendants
18
CITY and LAPD not only failed to take the action necessary to prevent reoccurrence of these
19
violations, they made such violations foreseeable by condoning their Officers abuse and
20
misuse of power and unnecessary, unreasonable and/or excessive force. Through these acts
21
and omissions, the Defendants CITY and LAPD proximately caused Plaintiffs injuries.
22
21.
At all times hereinafter alleged, the Defendants CITY and LAPD employed
23
Defendant OFFICER WESTON #38719, OFFICER BERMUDEZ #38268; and DOES 1
24
through 10, Inclusive. Defendants CITY and LAPD provided the Defendant Officers and
25
each of them, with official badges, identification cards, uniforms and marked LAPD patrol
26
units that described them as employees of the LAPD and that designated them as having the
27
full authority as sworn police officers.
28
22.
At all times herein mentioned, the Defendant Officers, including DOES 1
through 10, Inclusive, acted under color and pretense of law, acted in concert with one
another and acted under color of the statutes, regulations, ordinances, customs, policies,
processes and usages of the Defendant CITY and LAPD. The Defendant Officers and each
of them, separately and in concert, deprived Plaintiff the privileges, rights and immunities
secured by the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution and the laws of the State of California
23.
In addition, Defendants CITY and LAPD are liable for Plaintiffs injuries in
this action, because it created a de facto policy of its sworn Police Officers: 1) using
10
unnecessary, unreasonable and excessive force on persons; 2) unlawfully seizing persons;
11
3) arresting persons for crimes that they did not commit or fabricating probable cause to
12
arrest.
13
24.
Among other things alleged herein, the actions of the Defendants and each of
14
them, violated the following clearly established Federal and State constitutional rights of
15
Plaintiff:
16
First Amendment of the United States Constitution states, "Congress shall make no
17
law... abridging the freedom of speech, ...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
18
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
19
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution states, "The right of the
20
people to be secure in their persons ... against unreasonable ... seizures shall not be violated
21
... "
22
23
The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution states, "no person shall ... be
deprived of ... liberty , ... without due process of law .... "
24
The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution states, " ... nor shall any
25
State deprive any person of ... liberty ... without due process of law, nor deny to any person
26
within its jurisdiction the equal protections of law.
27
28
25.
The First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, privileges, freedoms and
immunities are incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment due process of law clause
making them applicable to the States and its political subdivisions such as the CITY and
LAPD and its police officers and Defendants and each of them herein.
3
4
5
26.
Plaintiff was denied the following rights, privileges, freedoms and immunities
protected under Plaintiff's First Amendment Rights:

1)
Freedom of thought and/or freedom to think and/or freedom of belief that
Plaintiff was acting within the law while exercising Plaintiff's First Amendment rights
peacefully while legally on a public sidewalk at an organized political rally in support of
Democratic Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders;
9
10
11
2)
Freedom of political speech peacefully while legally on a public sidewalk at
an organized political rally in support for Democratic Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders;
3)
Freedom of political expression while legally on a public sidewalk peacefully
12
at an organized political rally in support of Democratic Presidential candidate Bernie
13
Sanders;
14
4)
Freedom of political discussion with others peacefully while legally on a public
15
sidewalk at an organized political rally in support of Democratic Presidential candidate
16
Bernie Sanders;
17
5)
Freedom to advocate political ideas peacefully while legally on a public
18
19
Bernie Sanders;
20
6)
Freedom to communicate political ideas peacefully by voice, signs, and body
21
paint expressing words and/or other writings such a banners while legally on a public
22
23
Bernie Sanders with the political message Equality and ERA;
24
7)
Freedom to convey political ideas by acting or demonstrating peacefully while
25
legally on a public sidewalk at an organized political rally in support of Democratic
26
Presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders with the political message Feel the Bern Equality,
27
ERA and Free the Nipple among other things;
28
8)
Freedom to participate in an organized Presidential political rally peacefully
while legally on a public sidewalk in support of Democratic Presidential hopeful Bernie
Sanders;
9)
Freedom to assemble, associate and participate peacefully in an organized
political rally in support of the Democratic Presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders for President
of the United States while on a public sidewalk outside The Wiltern Theater in the City of
Los Angeles, State of California;
8
9
10
10)
Freedom to petition the government peacefully for redress of grievances
against in equality and gender bias while legally on a public sidewalk at an organized
political rally in support of Democratic Presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders;
11
11)
Freedom of speech for equality for women having the equal rights as men to
12
free their breasts at will in public by going natural without the fear of arrest while peacefully
13
and legally on a public sidewalk at an organized political rally in support of Democratic
14
Presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders where it was not illegal to expose one's breasts;
15
12)
Freedom of expression for equality for women having the equal rights as men
16
to free their breasts by going natural with the message Free the Nipple and Feel the Bern
17
at will in public without the fear of arrest at a location where is not illegal, while peacefully
18
and legally on a public sidewalk at an organized political rally of Democratic Presidential
19
hopeful Bernie Sanders.
20
27.
Plaintiff was denied the following rights, privileges, freedoms, and immunities
21
protected under Plaintiffs Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights in addition to
22
common law and statutory law protections under California law among other things alleged
23
herein:
24
(a) Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure of their person;
25
(b) Freedom from a deprivation of Plaintiffs liberty without due process of law;
26
(c) Freedom from the use of excessive, unnecessary and/or unreasonable force;
27
(d) Freedom from summary punishment;
28
(e) Freedom from unlawful and false arrest and incarceration;

1
2
(f) Freedom from unreasonable search of person and property without probable cause
or an arrest, or search warrant;
(g) Freedom from unreasonable seizure of person without probable cause;
(h) Freedom from gender discrimination and unequal, gender biased application of the
law under the Equal Protection Clause resulting in a violation of equal protection of the law;
(i) Freedom from arbitrary application of the law without due process;
(j) Freedom to appear in public unclothed from the waist up, where it is not illegal to
8
9
10
do so;
(k) Freedom from threats and intimidation by threat of being arrested based upon
gender for appearing in pubic by going natural, unclothed from the waist up;
11
(l) Freedom from arbitrary and unreasonable arrest, a violation of California Penal
12
Code 836(a)(1), falsely alleging a violation of California Penal Code 314.1 for indecent
13
exposure;
14
(m) Freedom from arrest to move about freely and lawfully on a public sidewalk in
15
the City of Los Angeles while appearing in public unclothed from the waist up by going
16
natural, without government interference;
17
(n) Right to equal protection of the laws and to be free from gender discrimination;
18
28.
In addition to the above and foregoing, all of the individually named
19
Defendants to this action, including DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive acted pursuant to a
20
conspiracy, agreement and understanding and common plan and scheme, to deprive Plaintiff
21
of her constitutional rights as described below, and acted in joint and concerted action to so
22
deprive Plaintiff of her constitutional rights as set forth below; all in violation of the United
23
States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. 1983, and otherwise in violation of California state law.
24
Said conspiracy/agreement/ understanding/plan/scheme/joint action/concerted action, above-
25
referenced, was the cause of the violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights and damages
26
emanating therefrom, as set forth below.
27
28
29.
For State causes of action related to federal claims, Plaintiff is required to
comply with an administrative claim requirement under California law.

Plaintiff has
complied with all applicable requirements. A claim was filed on April 22, 2016, and assigned
claim number C16-05164 and was denied on May 18, 2016.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
30.
At all times herein alleged, Plaintiff ANNI MA was a 25 year old female of
Asian decent. On or about March 23, 2016 at about 6:30 p.m., Plaintiff was outside the
Wiltern Theater, located at 3790 Wilshire Boulevard, located within the City of Los Angeles,
County of Los Angeles. At the time of the incident there was a political rally taking place
inside the theater supporting Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders. Outside the theater there
were hundreds of individuals, including Plaintiff MA, who was supporting Bernie Sanders
10
campaign for President of the United States. Others may have been opposing Bernie Sanders
11
or supporting other presidential candidates, but all was peaceful. Plaintiff was dressed in a
12
skirt and, initially had no clothing on her upper torso except for masking tape covering her
13
nipples and areolas which had the words Free the Nipple and Feel the Bern. Plaintiff
14
had the words Equality written on her upper chest and ERA written on her upper
15
abdomen.
16
31.
Plaintiff MA removed the masking tape covering her nipples and areolas
17
thereby legally going natural. Plaintiff MA was attired in such a manner that she was not in
18
violation of any law.
19
32.
LAPD Officers believed to Defendant WESTON #38719 and/or Defendant
20
BERMUDEZ #38268, approached Plaintiff MA, grabbed her by her arms and forced her up
21
against a large pole. Said Defendant Officers told her that she must put the tape over her
22
nipples or she would be arrested. Plaintiff MA did not respond. When Plaintiff did not
23
respond to Defendant WESTONs unlawful order, Defendant WESTON held Plaintiffs arms
24
behind her back, forced her face down to the ground, placing his knee in her back. While
25
Plaintiff was face down on the ground, an individual identified by a black shirt with the word
26
SECURITY printed on the back, at Defendant WESTONs request and consent, removed
27
handcuffs from WESTONs belt and placed them on Plaintiff. During this time Plaintiff was
28
yelling statements such as Feel the Bern, My body my choice and Free the nipple.
1
2
Defendant WESTON told Plaintiff to not resist and to stop resisting.

33.
Plaintiff was forcibly placed into a marked LAPD patrol vehicle and
transported to the Downtown Detention Center. While being forced into the police vehicle,
Plaintiff yelled several times Free the nipple. Plaintiff was booked at 23:28 hours and
detained on an alleged violation of California Penal Code 314.1, indecent exposure. Bail
was set at $10,000.00.
7
8
9
34.
Defendant LAPD Officers WESTON, BERMUDEZ and Defendants DOES
1 through 10, Inclusive, participated in the arrest and detention of Plaintiff.

35.
Plaintiff was released incurring a cost for bond on March 24, 2016 at 18:00
10
with a notice to appear in court at the Clara Shortridge Foltz CJC Department 40. On or
11
about April 14, 2016 at 8:30 a.m. Plaintiff appeared with counsel incurring an additional
12
expense at the designated time and location. No charges had been filed by the People at that
13
time, and the Court provided Plaintiff with proof of appearance.
14
15
16
36.
While in custody at the Downtown Detention Center, Plaintiff contracted a
urinary tract infection due to the unsanitary conditions at the Detention Center.
37.
At the time of the alleged incident herein Plaintiff was disseminating
17
information about equal rights and equal treatment for women. Plaintiffs publication in
18
speech and expression were strictly political communicating information, expressing her
19
opinion, reciting grievances, protesting claimed abuses of unequal treatment of women based
20
on gender discrimination. At no time did Plaintiff expose herself, her genitals, private
21
parts, sex organs or person, or act lewd by intending or to direct public attention to her
22
genitals, which were appropriately covered from public view with proper clothing,
23
specifically a skirt and underwear, or for the purpose of sexually arousing or gratifying
24
herself, or anyone else, or sexually offending anyone. There was no sexually motivated
25
intent. Plaintiff was never nude but was falsely arrested for a violation of Penal Code
26
314.1, a serious offense with serious life time consequences for freely going natural from
27
the waist up which is not a crime in the State of California because mammary glands are
28
obviously not sex organs of which Defendants and each of them, knew or should have known
with proper training and education. California Civil Code 43.3 allows for breast feeding
by women in public in order to provide nutrients from the mother to a child because breasts
are not indecent. It is universal knowledge that mammary glands are exocrine glands in
humans that merely produce milk to feed young offspring and are not classified as
genitalia.Therefore, Defendants and each of them, knew or should have known with proper
educational training as well as common sense that they were violating Plaintiffs clearly
established Constitutional rights as herein stated above. Defendants, and each of them, knew
that Plaintiff was not violating any law but, fabricated the charge of a violation of California
Penal Code 314.1, in violation of California Penal Code 118.1, in order to arrest
10
Plaintiff for going natural from the waist up while exercising her Constitutional rights.
11
Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants and each of them, had to have acted intentionally,
12
and/or willfully, and/or recklessly and/or maliciously or were plainly or utterly incompetent
13
for not knowing that mammary glands are not sex organs referred to as genitals. Simply
14
going natural from the waist up bare breasted in public is not within the prescription of
15
California Penal Code 314.1. Breasts are not indecent within the meaning of 314.1 of
16
the California Penal Code and therefore there was no probable cause to arrest Plaintiff.
17
38.
At all times herein mentioned Plaintiff was unarmed, non-threatening, non-
18
trespassing, lawfully standing and assembled outside on a public sidewalk located within the
19
Defendant CITY.
20
39.
21
At no time during the course of the incident did Plaintiff participate in any
disturbance nor was there any disturbance at the location and/or its periphery.
22
40.
Plaintiff did not pose a threat to law enforcement or the publics safety.
23
41.
Defendants WESTON, BERMUDEZ and/or DOES 1 through 10, arrested
24
Plaintiff MA without a warrant and without probable cause, on the false allegation that
25
Plaintiff was allegedly in violation of California Penal Code 314.1, indecent exposure
26
which does not apply to female breasts.
27
28
42.
Said Defendant Officers booked Plaintiff into the Los Angeles Detention
Center where Plaintiff was held on $10,000.00 bail, which Plaintiff was able to post after two
1
2
(2) days of incarceration.

43.
Said actions of Defendants and each of them constituted a violation of
Plaintiffs civil rights in that said Defendant Officers actions were an unlawful interference
of Plaintiff freedom of expression and right to peaceably assemble, unreasonable and
unlawful use of unnecessary, unreasonable and/or excessive force exerted upon her and
unreasonable and unlawful seizure of her person in violation of her First, Fourth, Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendment rights of the U.S. Constitution and her State civil rights afforded
pursuant to California Civil Code 51.7, 52 and 52.1.
44.
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants CITY
10
and LAPD and their decision makers, with deliberate indifference, gross negligence, and
11
reckless disregard to the safety, security, and constitutional and statutory rights of the
12
Plaintiff, and all persons similarly situated, maintained, enforced, tolerated, permitted,
13
acquiesced in, and applied policies, practices, or customs and usages of, among other things:
14
subjecting people to unlawful arrest and unreasonable uses of force against their persons.
15
45.
Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants CITY
16
and LAPD have a long standing custom, policy and practice of violating civil rights,
17
including unnecessary, unreasonable, excessive use of force and arbitrary arrest and other
18
similar actions and ordered, authorized, acquiesced in, tolerated, permitted or maintained
19
custom and usages permitting the other Defendants herein to engage in the unlawful and
20
unconstitutional actions, policies, practices, and customs or usages set forth in the foregoing
21
paragraph. Defendants' conduct as alleged herein constitutes a pattern of constitutional
22
violations based either on a deliberate plan by defendants or Defendants' deliberate
23
indifference, gross negligence, or reckless disregard to the safety, security, and rights of
24
Plaintiff.
25
46.
Plaintiff is informed and believes that the violations of her constitutional and
26
lawful rights complained of herein were caused by customs, policies, directives, practices,
27
acts and omissions of authorized policy makers of the Defendants CITY and LAPD including
28
Defendant DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, which are other supervisory officials of the LAPD,
which encouraged, authorized, directed, condoned, and ratified the unconstitutional and
unlawful conduct complained of herein. Said customs, policies and practices include, but are
not limited to the use of unnecessary, unreasonable and excessive and/or arbitrary force to
remove those persons involved in free speech and expressive activities; the failure to
maintain adequate policies, and to adequately train, supervise and control LAPD Officers,
concerning the policing of political speech and/or celebratory activities to within
constitutional limitations on the use of force and arrest; and the failure to investigate and
impose discipline on LAPD Officers involved in the unconstitutional and unlawful actions
complained of herein, and/or to adopt other remedial measures and policies to insure that
10
11
such violations of legal rights would not recur.

47.
As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of defendants described herein,
12
Plaintiff has been denied her constitutional, statutory and legal rights as stated below, and has
13
suffered, continues to suffer and will in the future suffer general and special damages,
14
including but not limited to, mental and emotional distress, physical injuries and bodily harm,
15
pain, fear, humiliation, embarrassment, discomfort, fright, nervousness, error and anxiety,
16
medical and related expenses, bail costs and attorneys fees in an amount according to proof.
17
18
48.
Defendants acts were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive and done with
conscious disregard and deliberate indifference for Plaintiffs rights.
19
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
20
VIOLATION OF FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. 1983
21
Unlawful Seizure of Person
22
(Against All Non-Governmental Entity Defendants
23
and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive)
24
25
26
49.
Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth
above in paragraphs 1 through 48, inclusive, as if set forth in full herein.

50.
This cause of action is to redress a deprivation, under color of authority, statute,
27
ordinance, regulation, policy, custom, practice or usage of a right, privilege and immunity
28
secured to Plaintiff by the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments

51.
Plaintiff contends and herein alleges that the above described conduct by
Defendant Officers and each of them, violated Plaintiffs right to be free from unreasonable
seizure and excessive and/or arbitrary use of force and/or arrest and/or imprisonment without
reasonable or probable cause under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution.
52.
Defendants and each of them, are liable to Plaintiff pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 for depriving Plaintiff of her rights, privileges and immunities secured by the
Constitution. The actions of Defendant Officers' was a substantial factor causing Plaintiff to
suffer serious constitutional, physical and emotional injuries, including, without limitation:
10
illegal invasion of her person; pain and physical injury; humiliation, emotional pain and
11
suffering.
12
53.
13
Plaintiff claims general damages for such physical and mental distress in an
amount to be proven at trial.
14
54.
As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant Officers' violations, Plaintiff
15
did, and will in the future, incur medical, pharmaceutical and incidental expenses, in an
16
17
18
55.
Plaintiff incurred fees for investigations, expenses and other costs in the
prosecution of the constitutional violations alleged herein.
19
56.
Plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest, on all ascertainable or readily
20
ascertainable items from the date of such of financial loss, from the date of incurring such
21
losses.
22
57.
The Defendant Officers committed the aforementioned acts in their individual
23
capacities, but while acting under color of law and official police authority. Each Defendant
24
Officer acted willfully, knowingly and with reckless disregard and deliberate indifference to
25
the known consequences of their acts and omissions and purposely with the intent to deprive
26
Plaintiff of her federally protected rights and privileges. The Defendant Officers did, in fact,
27
violate rights and privileges of Plaintiff. As such the Defendant Officers actions were
28
willful, wanton, malicious, oppressive, vexatious, deliberate, and their actions justify an
award of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be ascertained according to proof
at trial.
58.
Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys fees as provided in 42 U.S.C. 1988.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. 1983
Unreasonable And Excessive Force, Due Process and Equal Protection
(Against All Non-Governmental Entities Defendants,
Including DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive)
9
10
11
59.

60.
The physical force used upon Plaintiff by means of Defendants and each of
12
them, by arbitrary unlawful, unreasonable and excessive force constituted an unreasonable
13
and excessive use of force, without basis or provocation, and violated Plaintiffs Fourth, Fifth
14
and Fourteenth Amendment Rights under the United States Constitution and Plaintiffs rights
15
under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
16
61.
Defendants' above described conduct violated Plaintiffs right to not be
17
deprived of liberty, freedom and equality without due process of law under the Fourteenth
18
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
19
62.
Defendants' above described conduct violated Plaintiffs Fourteenth
20
Amendment right which protects Plaintiff from gender based discrimination and unequal,
21
gender biased application of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
22
Constitution.
23
63.
In the manner alleged more fully above, the Defendants CITY and LAPD
24
employed said individual Defendant Officers WESTON, BERMUDEZ, and DOES 1 through
25
10, inclusive, providing them with the instruments identifying them as LAPD Officers acting
26
under the color of law.
27
28
64.
At all times herein mentioned, the Defendant Officers and each of them, acted
under color and pretense of law, individually and/or while acting in concert with one another,
and acted under color of the statutes, regulations, ordinances, customs, policies, processes
and usages of the Defendants CITY and LAPD. The Defendant Officers individually and/or
in concert with one another, deprived Plaintiff the privileges, rights and immunities secured
to Plaintiff by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and
the laws of the United States.
65.
In committing the acts alleged more fully above, the Defendant Officers, and
each of them, violated Plaintiffs federally protected rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution by: (1) seizing Plaintiffs person without
warrant or legal authority; (2) seizing Plaintiff without probable cause or due process; (3)
10
detaining Plaintiff by using unauthorized, unnecessary, unreasonable and/or excessive
11
physical force, intimidation and violence; (4) gender based discrimination; (5) committing
12
assault and battery against Plaintiff by using unnecessary, unjustified, unreasonable and/or
13
excessive force in handcuffing and arresting Plaintiff; and (5) inflicting injuries. The
14
Defendant Officers violations give rise to Plaintiffs claims pursuant the Federal Civil
15
Rights Act 42 U.S.C. 1983.
16
66.
At all times herein mentioned, said Defendant Officers and each of them, in
17
the manner alleged more fully above, willfully and intentionally used force without reason
18
or provocation on Plaintiff causing the injuries and damages as set forth herein. This
19
unnecessary, unreasonable and/or excessive force and/or show of authority terminated and
20
restrained Plaintiffs freedom of movement through the means intentionally applied which
21
amounted to an unconstitutional seizure of Plaintiffs person.
22
67.
At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiff never acted in a manner that was
23
threatening to public safety, nor did Plaintiff pose any risk of harm to the LAPD Police
24
Officers, or other persons or property in the area. Plaintiff never did or said anything to
25
justify any use of any force against her. Defendant Officers used force against Plaintiff
26
without any provocation or legal justification. Moreover, the severity and quantity of force
27
the Defendant Officers used, grossly exceeded that necessary to achieve a lawful
28
governmental purpose.
68.
The Defendant Officers' use of unnecessary, unreasonable and/or excessive
force was a substantial factor causing Plaintiff to suffer constitutional, physical and
emotional injuries, including, without limitation: illegal invasion of her person; false arrest;
pain and physical injury; humiliation, emotional pain and suffering.
5
6
69.
70.
did and will in the future, incur medical, pharmaceutical and incidental expenses, in an
10
71.
Plaintiff incurred attorneys fees for investigations, bail expenses, other
11
expenses and other costs, in addition for the prosecution of the constitutional violations
12
alleged herein.
13
72.
14
15
losses.
16
73.
The Defendant Officers and each of them, committed the aforementioned acts
17
in their individual capacities, but while acting under color of law and official police
18
authority. Each Defendant Officer acted willfully, knowingly and with reckless disregard
19
and deliberate indifference to the known consequences of their acts and omissions and
20
purposely with the intent to deprive Plaintiff of their
21
privileges. The Defendant Officers did, in fact, violate rights and privileges of Plaintiff. As
22
such the Defendant Officers actions were willful, wanton, malicious, oppressive, vexatious,
23
deliberate, and their actions justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages in an
24
amount to be ascertained according to proof at trial.
25
74.
federally protected rights and
26
27
28
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS 42 U.S.C. 1983
Right to Peaceful Association, Assembly, Freedom of Speech
and Petition Government
7
8
9
75.

76.
At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiff was peacefully assembled on a public
10
sidewalk in the City of Los Angeles, outside an organized political rally engaging in
11
constitutionally protected expressive activity by protesting the freedom for equality for
12
women having the equal rights as men to freely and equally appear in public unclothed from
13
the waist up by going natural and conveying particularized political messages in the form of
14
words painted on Plaintiffs upper torso and chest.
15
77.
Defendant Officers WESTON, BERMUDEZ and DOES 1 through 10,
16
inclusive, violated Plaintiffs First Amendment Rights when Defendants and each of them
17
arrested Plaintiff without probable cause and in retaliation for her having exercised her First
18
Amendment right to peaceful association, assembly, freedom of speech and petitioning the
19
government for redress.
20
78.
Plaintiffs constitutionally protected expressive speech was related to matters
21
of public concern.
22
79.
Defendant Officers acts of intimidating, threatening, searching, and falsely
23
arresting Plaintiff were motivated by Plaintiffs exercise of constitutionally protected
24
conduct.
25
80.
Defendant Officers actions caused Plaintiff to suffer injuries that would chill
26
a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in such constitutionally protected
27
activity.
28
81.
Defendant Officers conduct violated clearly established rights belonging to
Plaintiff of which reasonable persons in Defendant Officers position knew or should have
known.
82.
Defendant Officers acts were done under color of state and/or federal law.
83.
Defendant Officers engaged in the conduct described herein above
intentionally, knowingly, willfully, wantonly maliciously and in reckless disregard of
Plaintiffs constitutional rights, sufficient for an award of punitive/exemplary damages
against defendants in an amount to be ascertained according to proof at trial.
84.
As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant Officers violations, Plaintiff
10
did, and will in the future continue to incur medical, psychiatric, pharmaceutical and
11
incidental expenses, in an amount to be proven at time of trial.
12
13
85.
14
86.
15
ascertainable items from the date of such financial loss, from the date of incurring such
16
losses.
17
87.
18
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
19
VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS 42 U.S.C. 1983
20
Unconstitutional Municipal Customs And Policies
21
(Against Defendants CITY OF LOS ANGELES and
22
CITY OF LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT)
23
24
25
88.

89.
As alleged more fully above, Defendant Officers of the LAPD (1) used
26
unreasonable, unnecessary and/or excessive force, without basis or provocation, when they
27
unlawfully and unreasonably arrested and handcuffed Plaintiff after taking her down to the
28
ground when she was unarmed, non-threatening and peacefully assembled with others,
causing injury and damages, thus terminating and/or restraining Plaintiffs freedom of
movement, which amounted to an unconstitutional seizure; (2) unlawfully detained and
arrested Plaintiff without a warrant, probable cause or exigent circumstances; in violation of
her First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
90.
As alleged more fully above, the Defendants CITY and LAPD maintained
policies, practices and customs that condoned: (1) the LAPD Officers unconstitutional use
of unnecessary, unreasonable and/or excessive force; (2) the LAPDS culture that promoted
Officers use of unnecessary, unreasonable and/or excessive force to achieve governmental
and personal ends; and, (3) the LAPDS Officers use of police power for personal
10
11
satisfaction.
91.
At all times herein mentioned, Defendants CITY and LAPD, by and through
12
its supervisory employees and agents, including DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, has and had
13
a mandatory duty of care to properly and adequately hire, train, retain, supervise, and
14
discipline its police officers so as to avoid unreasonable risk of harm to citizens. With
15
deliberate indifference, Defendants CITY, LAPD and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, failed
16
to take necessary, proper, or adequate measures in order to prevent the violation of Plaintiffs
17
rights and injury to said Plaintiff. Defendants and each of them, including DOES 1 through
18
10, inclusive, breached their duty of care to citizens in that Defendants CITY and LAPD and
19
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, failed to adequately train its police officers, including
20
Defendants in the proper and reasonable use of force, the proper and reasonable making of
21
arrests, and/or failed to have adequate policies and procedures regarding the proper and
22
reasonable use of force and the proper and reasonable making of arrests. This lack of
23
adequate supervisorial training, and/or policies and procedures demonstrates the existence
24
of an informal custom or policy of promoting, tolerating, and/or ratifying the continuing use
25
of excessive and unreasonable force by police officers employed by LAPD, the continuing
26
failure to make proper and reasonable arrests by police officers employed by LAPD
27
28
92.
The Defendants CITY and LAPD knew this culture promoted Officers use of
unnecessary, unreasonable and/or excessive force, knew this culture allowed Officers to use
unnecessary, unreasonable and/or excessive force with impunity and knew this culture of the
LAPD Officers to use unnecessary, unreasonable and/or excessive force in violation of
third-parties civil rights. However, despite this knowledge, the Defendants CITY and
LAPD failed to establish policies and procedures to eradicate this culture. By such failure,
the Defendants CITY and LAPD ratified their Police Officers unconstitutional acts,
including those of the Defendant Officers and each of them.
93.
As alleged more fully above, the Defendants CITY and LAPD knew this
throughout unnecessary, unreasonable and/or excessive force culture rendered the training
they did provide LAPD Police Officers ineffective to protect third-parties from unlawful
10
detention, unreasonable seizures and excessive uses of force. Consequently, the Defendants
11
CITY and LAPD knew, or should have known, they needed to increase and improve the
12
training they provided to LAPD Police Officers generally, and the Defendant Officers
13
specifically, in the lawful use of force and their obligation to report fellow Police Officers
14
use of unnecessary, unreasonable and/or excessive force. However, despite this knowledge,
15
the Defendants CITY and LAPD failed to provide the training, monitoring, supervision
16
and/control necessary to eradicate the LAPDs unnecessary, unreasonable and/or excessive
17
force culture, eradicate the LAPD Police Officers routine use of unnecessary, unreasonable
18
and/or excessive force. By such failure the Defendants CITY and LAPD ratified their Police
19
Officers disregard, and the Defendant Officers disregard, of constitutional restrictions on
20
police action and protections against use of unnecessary, unreasonable and/or excessive
21
force.
22
94.
As alleged more fully above, the Defendants CITY and LAPD failed to screen
23
prospective Police Officer applicants adequately before hiring them as LAPD Police
24
Officers. Moreover, the Defendants CITY and LAPD failed to conduct adequate post-
25
employment screening of its LAPD Police Officers. The Defendants CITY and LAPDs
26
failure to conduct adequate pre-employment and post-employment screening caused them
27
to hire and retain individuals, including the Defendant Officers, prone to using police power
28
for personal satisfaction and prone to use unnecessary, unreasonable and/or excessive force
and prone to disregarding the constitutional limits restricting police power. Based on internal
and external audits, citizen complaints, notices of governmental claims and civil rights
lawsuits, the Defendants CITY and LAPD knew they needed to improve their pre and post
employment screening to exclude candidates and employees prone to these violations.
95.
Although they knew, or should have known, their LAPD Police Officers and
the Defendant Officers conducted these acts, omissions, decisions, practices, customs and
policies, both formal and informal, and knew their Department and Police Officers were
violating third-parties civil rights, the Defendants CITY and LAPD have taken no steps to
stop this course of conduct. The Defendants CITY and LAPD ratified these violations by
10
knowingly refusing to take corrective action, thereby elevating these violations to being the
11
policies, practices or customs of the Defendant CITY.
12
96.
The Defendants CITY and LAPD were deliberately indifferent to their Police
13
Officers abuse of police power, uses of unnecessary, unreasonable and/or excessive force
14
and the injuries they caused third-parties, including the Defendant Officers use of
15
unreasonable, unnecessary and/or excessive force against Plaintiff, and the injuries they
16
caused. Moreover, the Defendants CITY and LAPD failed to take any disciplinary action
17
whatsoever against the Defendant Officers for these injuries and violations. The Defendants
18
CITY and LAPDs knowing failure to implement corrective polices, practices, procedures,
19
training and adequate screening were substantial factors in proximately causing the physical
20
injuries, emotional trauma and civil rights violations the Defendant Officers inflicted on
21
Plaintiff .
22
97.
The details of this incident and the Defendant Officers' misconduct have been
23
revealed to the Defendants CITY and LAPDs authorized policymaker(s) as alleged more
24
fully above. As such, these policymakers had direct knowledge of the Defendant Officers
25
unnecessary, unreasonable and/or excessive force, unlawful seizure and unlawful detainment
26
inflicted on Plaintiff, and violation of her civil rights, which the Defendants CITY and LAPD
27
approved and endorsed. By doing so, the Defendants CITY and LAPDs authorized
28
policymakers ratified the Defendant Officers unconstitutional acts, their unconstitutional use
of unnecessary, unreasonable and/or excessive force and the injuries they caused Plaintiff.
98.
In committing the acts set forth above, the Defendants CITY and LAPD, and
each of them, violated Plaintiff federally protected rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Defendants CITY and
LAPD's violations give rise to Plaintiffs claims pursuant the Federal Civil Rights Act, 42
U.S.C. 1983.
99.
The Defendants CITY and LAPD's policies, practices, procedures and customs
were substantial factors causing Plaintiff serious constitutional, physical and emotional
injuries, including, without limitation: assault, battery, false arrest and imprisonment,
10
humiliation and emotional pain and suffering, suffering, anguish, fright, nervousness,
11
anxiety, grief, shock, humiliation, indignity, embarrassment, and apprehension. Plaintiff
12
claims general damages for such physical and mental distress in an amount to be proven at
13
trial.
14
100.
As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants CITY and LAPD's
15
violations, Plaintiff did, and will in the future continue, incur medical, psychiatric,
16
pharmaceutical and incidental expenses, in an amount to be proven at time of trial.
17
18
101.
19
102.
20
21
losses.
22
103.
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
FALSE ARREST/FALSE IMPRISONMENT - CALIFORNIA STATE LAW
(Against Defendants CITY, LAPD, OFFICER WESTON #38719, OFFICER
BERMUDEZ #38268; and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive)
5
6
104.
Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth above
in paragraphs 1 through 103, inclusive, as if set forth in full herein.
105.
As alleged more fully above, Plaintiff was unlawfully detained, falsely arrested
and imprisoned to go where Plaintiff did not want to go and was compelled to remain where
Plaintiff did not want to be. Moreover, as described above, Plaintiff was unlawfully
10
detained, handcuffed, unnecessarily restrained and arrested.
11
106.
None of the Defendant Officers to this action had either reasonable suspicion
12
of criminality afoot by plaintiff or probable cause to believe that plaintiff had committed a
13
crime.
14
107.
Said Defendants and each of them restrained and deprived plaintiff of liberty.
15
108.
Said Defendants and each of them intentionally deprived plaintiff of freedom
16
17
18
19
20
21
of movement by use of physical force.

109.
Plaintiff did not consent to said deprivation of freedom of movement. Plaintiff
suffered harm because of said deprivation of freedom of movement.

110.
The actions by said Defendants and each of them, described above, constituted
a false arrest/false imprisonment of plaintiff under California state law.

111.
Defendants and each of them are liable to Plaintiff for said false arrest/false
22
imprisonment, assault and battery, negligence and statutory violations pursuant to Cal. Govt
23
Code 815.2(a), 820, and otherwise pursuant to the common-law. Said Defendants can be
24
sued pursuant to Cal. Govt Code 945.
25
26
112.
27
28
113.
4
5
114.
115.
losses.
116.
10
11
Officer acted willfully, knowingly and with reckless disregard and deliberate indifference
12
to the known consequences of their acts and omissions and purposely with the intent to
13
deprive Plaintiff of his federally protected rights and privileges. The Defendant Officers did,
14
in fact, violate Plaintiffs rights and privileges. As such the Defendant Officers' actions were
15
willful, wanton, malicious, oppressive, vexatious, deliberate, and their actions justify an
16
award of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be ascertained according to proof
17
at trial as to the individual Defendant Officers and DOES 1 through 10 only.
18
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
19
ASSAULT AND BATTERY - CALIFORNIA STATE LAW
20
(Against Defendants CITY, LAPD, OFFICER WESTON #38719, OFFICER
21
BERMUDEZ #38268; and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive)
22
23
24
117.

118.
As alleged more fully above, said Defendant Officers acted intending to cause
25
harmful or offensive contact with Plaintiff by handcuffing Plaintiff by force and taking
26
Plaintiff to the ground. The Defendant Officers offensive contact upon Plaintiff, and their
27
failure to protect Plaintiff and allowing the injuries and damages as herein alleged,
28
engendered fear in Plaintiff in that Plaintiff was afraid that she would be further assaulted
causing her injury. This offensive contact by Defendant Officers was without consent,
unwanted and not warranted by any exigency of the circumstances.
3
4
119.
Plaintiff did not consent to any of this morally opprobrious, unlawful, offensive
and injurious conduct by the Defendant Officers as above-described.
120.
Said assault was not consented to by Plaintiff, nor were the Defendant Officers
infliction of serious bodily injury upon Plaintiff, privileged or immunized by the laws of the
State of California.
121.
9
10
to Cal. Govt Code 815.2(a) and 820 otherwise pursuant to the common-law. Said
Defendants can be sued pursuant to Cal. Govt Code 945.
11
12
Defendants and each of them are liable to Plaintiff for said battery, pursuant
122.
13
123.
14
15
16
17
124.
18
125.
19
20
losses
21
126.
22
23
Officer acted willfully, knowingly and with reckless disregard and deliberate indifference to
24
the known consequences of their acts and omissions and purposely with the intent to deprive
25
Plaintiff of her federally protected rights and privileges.
26
127.
The Defendant Officers did, in fact, violate Plaintiffs rights and privileges.
27
As such the Defendant Officers' actions were willful, wanton, malicious, oppressive,
28
vexatious, deliberate, and their actions justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages
in an amount to be ascertained according to proof at trial as to the individual Defendant
Officers and DOES 1 through 10 only.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE 51.7
(RALPH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT)
8
9
10
128.

129.
Defendants and each of them, committed violence, including but not limited
11
to, falsely arresting Plaintiff by intimidation by threat of violence, against Plaintiff because
12
of Plaintiffs gender denying Plaintiff equal protection under the law, in violation of Civil
13
Code 51.7 and the California Constitutional rights, Article I, Section 1, the Inalienable
14
right of enjoying liberty, Article I, Section 7 and Article I, Section 13. Defendants and each
15
of them intentionally interfered with Plaintiffs Constitutional rights to freedom, liberty and
16
equality by intimidation.
17
130.
Defendant Officers of the LAPD aided, incited and conspired in the denial of
18
Plaintiffs rights under Civil Code 51.7, while acting as employees of Defendant CITY
19
and/or LAPD.
20
131.
Defendant Officers of LAPD were acting in part within the course and scope
21
of their employment by CITY and/or LAPD and were, at least in part, serving a purpose of
22
their own in carrying out the above misconduct against Plaintiff. Defendant Officers of the
23
LAPD were motivated, at least in part, by malice and ill will toward Plaintiff because of her
24
sex (female).
25
132.
As a proximate result of the misconduct of Defendants and each of them,
26
Plaintiff is entitled, pursuant to Civil Code 52, to an award of actual general and special
27
damages (including but not limited to physical and mental injuries and disabilities; pain and
28
suffering, emotional distress), exemplary and punitive damages, a civil penalty of twenty five
thousand dollars ($25,000.00) for each violation of 51.7 by each Defendant, and reasonable
attorneys fees as may be determined by the Court. Plaintiff has retained the legal services
of attorneys and incurred an obligation for fees.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE 52.1
(BANE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT)
9
10
11
133.

134.
Defendant Officers and each of them, interfered and/or attempted to interfere,
12
by intimidation, coercion, and/or credible threats of violence, with the exercise or enjoyment
13
of Plaintiffs First Amendment Rights to exercise freedom of speech, expression, petition
14
government and to assemble peacefully, as well as the right to be free from deprivation of
15
freedom, liberty and equality as a result of gender discrimination. Said rights are secured
16
by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the rights secured by the Constitution
17
or laws of the State of California. Plaintiffs rights include, but are not limited to; Civil Code
18
51.7, 52, 52.1 (violation of equal protection)
19
135.
Defendants and each of them, committed violence, including but not limited
20
to, falsely arresting Plaintiff by intimidation by threat of violence, against Plaintiff because
21
of Plaintiffs gender denying Plaintiff equal protection under the law, in violation of Civil
22
Code 51.7 and the California Constitutional rights, Article I, Section 1, the Inalienable
23
right of enjoying liberty, Article I, Section 7 and Article I, Section 13. Defendants and each
24
of them intentionally interfered with Plaintiffs Constitutional rights to freedom, liberty and
25
equality by intimidation.
26
136.
The above-described conduct by Defendant Officers and each of them,
27
constituted interference, and attempted interference, by threats, intimidation and coercion,
28
with Plaintiffs peaceful exercise and enjoyment of rights secured by the Constitution and
laws of the United States and the State of California, in violation of California Civil Code
52.1.
137.
Defendant Officers and each of them, were acting in part, acting within the
course and scope of their employment by Defendants CITY and LAPD and were, at least in
part, serving a purpose of their own in carrying out the above misconduct against Plaintiff.
Defendants and each of them, were motivated, at least in part, by malice and ill will towards
Plaintiff who appeared in public by going natural, unclothed from the waist up.
138.
As the proximate result of the misconduct by Defendants and each of them,
Plaintiff suffered damages. Plaintiff is entitled, pursuant to Civil Code 51.7, 52 and 52.1
10
to an award of actual general and special damages, exemplary damages, and reasonable
11
attorneys fees as may be determined by the Court.
12
139.
Pursuant to Civil Code 3294, Defendant Officers wrongful conduct was
13
malicious, oppressive, fraudulent, despicable and not to be tolerated by civilized society and
14
was known, authorized, ratified and/or perpetrated by Defendants CITY and/or LAPDs
15
managing agents, entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an
16
amount to be proven.
17
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
18
NEGLIGENCE
19
(Against All Defendants and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive)
20
21
22
140.

141.
Defendants and each of them have a duty of care to Plaintiff to ensure that
23
Defendants and each of them, did not cause unnecessary or unjustified harm to Plaintiff and
24
a duty of care to hire, train, supervise and discipline LAPD Police Officers so as to not cause
25
harm to Plaintiff and to prevent violations of Plaintiffs constitutional, statutory and common
26
law rights. Defendants and each of them, acted carelessly, recklessly, incompetently and
27
negligently by causing Plaintiff to be arrested for an alleged violation of California Penal
28
Code 314.1.
142.
The above-described acts and omissions of Defendants and each of them,
breached the duty of care Defendants and each of them owed to Plaintiff thereby negligently
causing said injuries and damages to Plaintiff in an amount to be proven at trial.
143. Defendants and each of them, committed the aforementioned acts in their
individual capacities, but while acting under color of law and official police authority.
Defendant Officers and each of them, acted negligently with reckless disregard to the known
consequences of their acts and omissions.
8
9
144.
Plaintiff did not contribute to any of the injurious conduct by the Defendants
and each of them as described herein above.
10
145.
Defendants and each of them are liable to Plaintiff for said negligence,
11
pursuant to Cal. Govt Code 815.2(a), 820(a) and otherwise pursuant to the common-law.
12
Said Defendants can be sued pursuant to Cal. Govt Code 945.
13
14
146.
15
147.
As a direct and proximate result of the violations of Defendants and each of
16
them, Plaintiff did and will in the future, incur medical, pharmaceutical and incidental
17
expenses in an amount to be proven at trial.
18
19
148.
20
149.
21
22
losses
23
24
25
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff claims for relief above demand the following relief,
jointly and severally, against all the defendants as applicable under the law as follows:
26
1.
Compensatory general and special damages in an amount in accordance with
27
proof which are:
28
(a)
As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts of

defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff suffered the following injuries and damages which
are recoverable by Plaintiff under the Federal Civil Rights statutes and State Civil Rights
statutes identified herein:
(b)
Violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution to be free from unreasonable
search and seizure of her person and by depriving her of gender equality, freedom of speech,
freedom to assemble, freedom of liberty, without due process of law;
8
9
12
13
Violation of California State Civil Rights under Civil Code 51.7 and
(d)
Conscious physical pain, suffering and emotional trauma; and
52.1;
10
11
(c)
2.
General and special damages as a result of intentional and negligent acts
according to proof;
3.
Punitive and exemplary damages where applicable under the law for State
14
actions pursuant to California Civil Code 3294 and for Federal actions pursuant to Smith
15
v. Wade (1983) 461 U.S. 30, in amounts to be determined according to proof as to the
16
individual Defendants only, excluding all public entities;
17
18
19
20
4.
For an award of statutory damages and penalties pursuant to Cal. Civil Code
52(b) to be determined according to proof;

5.
Reasonable attorneys fees and expenses of litigation, including those fees
permitted by 42 U.S.C. 1988; and California Civil Code 51.7 and 52.1
21
6.
For costs of suit necessarily incurred herein;
22
7.
Prejudgment interest according to proof; and
23
8.
Such other and further relief as the Court deems just.
24
25
DATED: August 4, 2016
/S/ John R. Cogorno

JOHN R. COGORNO, Attorney for
Plaintiff
/S/ R. Allen Baylis

R. ALLEN BAYLIS, Attorney for
Plaintiff
26
27
28
1
2
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable.
3
4
/S/ John R. Cogorno

JOHN R. COGORNO, Attorney for
Plaintiff
/S/ R. Allen Baylis

R. ALLEN BAYLIS, Attorney for
Plaintiff
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Anni Ma v. Los Angeles Police Department - Free The Nipple Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anni Ma v. Los Angeles Police Department - Free The Nipple Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:16-cv-05819-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 1 of 34 Page ID #:1

JOHN R. COGORNO, SBN 63966

CITY OF LOS ANGELES; CITY OF LOS

Case No: 2:16-cv-5819

Violation of Civil Rights 42

Case 2:16-cv-05819-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 2 of 34 Page ID #:2

CITY OF LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT; OFFICER WESTON #38719,

Individually and in his Official Capacity as a Police Officer; OFFICER BERMUDEZ

alleges the following on information and belief:

ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT; OFFICER WESTON #38719, Individually and in

unknown officers, deputies or individuals employed by Defendants CITY and LAPD,

of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

constituted unnecessary, unreasonable and/or excessive use of force. This unnecessary,

Case 2:16-cv-05819-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 3 of 34 Page ID #:3

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Jurisdiction in this Court is therefore proper under 28 U.S.C. 1331.

This is a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1986.

Mine Workers vs. Gibbs (1966) 383 U.S. 715.

California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391.

Plaintiff ANNI MA (hereinafter MA) is and at all times herein mentioned

Angeles, City of Inglewood.

Defendant CITY OF LOS ANGELES (hereinafter CITY), is and was at

officers named herein as Defendants in this action.

Defendant CITY OF LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Case 2:16-cv-05819-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 4 of 34 Page ID #:4

Defendant CITY OF LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT can be sued separately

County of Los Angeles 236 F.3d 552, 557 (9 th Cir. 2001).

Defendant OFFICER WESTON #38719 (hereinafter "WESTON), is and

agent, and representative of Defendants CITY and LAPD.

Plaintiff sues Defendant WESTON in his individual and official capacity as

an active participant in, or alternatively, as a by-standing official who willingly failed to

intervene to protect Plaintiff from, the violations alleged herein.

Defendant OFFICER BERMUDEZ #32628 (hereinafter "BERMUDEZ "),

employee, agent, and representative of Defendants CITY and LAPD.

Plaintiff sues Defendant BERMUDEZ in his individual and official capacity

as an active participant in, or alternatively, as a by-standing official who willingly failed to

intervene to protect Plaintiff from the violations alleged herein.

Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and/or capacities of Defendants sued

Case 2:16-cv-05819-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 5 of 34 Page ID #:5

negligence, breach of duty, negligent supervision, management or control, violation of

constitutional and legal rights, or by reason of other personal, vicarious or imputed

remedial or disciplinary action.

Defendants CITY and LAPD.

Case 2:16-cv-05819-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 6 of 34 Page ID #:6

in concert with each of said other Defendants.

Defendants, including DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive in this action.

named as Defendants, including DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, in this action.

Defendant OFFICER WESTON #38719, OFFICER BERMUDEZ #38268; and DOES 1

full authority as sworn police officers.

Case 2:16-cv-05819-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 7 of 34 Page ID #:7

At all times herein mentioned, the Defendant Officers, including DOES 1

Constitution and the laws of the State of California

unnecessary, unreasonable and excessive force on persons; 2) unlawfully seizing persons;

and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

within its jurisdiction the equal protections of law.

Case 2:16-cv-05819-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 8 of 34 Page ID #:8

protected under Plaintiff's First Amendment Rights:

Freedom of thought and/or freedom to think and/or freedom of belief that

peacefully while legally on a public sidewalk at an organized political rally in support of

Democratic Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders;

Freedom of political speech peacefully while legally on a public sidewalk at

Freedom of political expression while legally on a public sidewalk peacefully

at an organized political rally in support of Democratic Presidential candidate Bernie