inman complaint

Andrew C. Schwartz (State Bar No. 64578) CASPER, MEADOWS, SCHWARTZ & COOK A Professional Corporation 2121 North California Blvd., Suite 1020 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Telephone: (925)947-1147 Facsimile: (925) 947-113.3 schwa rtzcmslaw.com )J

Karen L. Snell (State Bar No. 100266) Attorney at Law 102 Buena Vista Terrace San Francisco, CA 94117 Telephone: (415) 225-7592,:\ Facsimile: (415) 487-0748 ksnell(snelI-law.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

vs.

SANTA CRUZ SEASIDE COMPANY, SANTA CRUZ SEASIDE SECURITY OFFICERS ROGER BARRERA, KAITLYN COLE, JORDAN EMENY-SMITH, FABIAN GONZALEZ, SANTOS HERNANDEZ, DARRYL KRINER, ERIC NEGRETE, LUZ NIETO, JOAQUIN SEYMOUR, NICHOLAS SOLANO, SAUL VALADEZ and KEVIN WALSH, CITY OF SANTA CRUZ, SANTA CRUZ POLICE OFFICERS AHLERS, DENISE COCKRUM and BRIAN HATCHER, and DOES 1 through 100,

Defendants.

II

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

L 12

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANGIE INMAN, COREY INMAN,JO

ASENO. INMAN, and TYLER INMAN,

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Plaintiffs, (Violation of Civil Rights)

CASPER, MEADOWS, SCHWARTZ & COOK

2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 1020

Walnut Creek, CA 94596 TEL (925)947-1147 FAX (925) 947-1131

Angie Inman, et al., v. Santa Cruz Seaside Company, et al. Complaint

Case5:13-cv-03235-PSG Document1 Filed07/12/13 Page1 of 13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 CASPER, MEADOWS, SCHWARTZ & COOK

2121 N. California Sled., Suite 1020

Walnut Creek, CA 94596 TEL: (925) 947-1147 FAX (925) 947-1131

INTRODUCTION

1. This is an action for money damages brought by ANGIE INMAN,

COREY INMAN, JON INMAN and TYLER INMAN, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983

and 1988, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, and the

common law of the State of California, against SANTA CRUZ SEASIDE COMPANY,

SANTA CRUZ SEASIDE SECURITY OFFICERS ROGER BARRERA, KAITLYN

I COLE, JORDAN EMENY-SMITH, FABIAN GONZALEZ, SANTOS HERNANDEZ,

I DARRYL KRINER, ERIC NEGRETE, LUZ NIETO, JOAQUIN SEYMOUR,

I NICHOLAS SOLANO, SAUL VALADEZ and KEVIN WALSH, CITY OF SANTA

I CRUZ, SANTA CRUZ POLICE OFFICERS AHLERS, DENISE COCKRUM and

BRIAN HATCHER, and DOES I through 100.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. Jurisdiction is conferred upon the United States District Court by 28

U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’

state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

3. The actions giving rise to Defendants’ liability, as alleged in this Complaint, occurred within the Northern District of California. Venue is therefore proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and Civil Local Rule 3-2(d).

INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

4. The events which give rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in Santa Cruz,

California. This case is therefore appropriate for assignment to the San Jose Division

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-2.

IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES

5. At all times material to this Complaint, Plaintiffs ANGIE INMAN, COREY INMAN, JON INMAN, and TYLER INMAN were residents of Novato, California.



1 Plaintiff COREY INMAN was a minor at the time of the actions described herein, but

2 all Plaintiffs are now of full age.

3 6. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendant SANTA CRUZ 4 I SEASIDE COMPANY was a private company located in Santa Cruz, California, that

5 owned and operated the Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk.

7. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendants ROGER BARRERA, 7 I KAITLYN COLE, JORDAN EMENY-SMITH, FABIAN GONZALEZ, SANTOS 8 I HERNANDEZ, DARRYL KRINER, ERIC NEGRETE, LUZ NIETO, JOAQUIN 9 I SEYMOUR, NICHOLAS SOLANO, SAUL VALADEZ and KEVIN WALSH were

10 SANTA CRUZ SEASIDE COMPANY SECURITY OFFICERS who were acting under

11 color of law and within the course and scope of their employment with Defendant

12 SANTA CRUZ SEASIDE COMPANY. Each of these Defendants jointly participated

13 with Defendant CITY OF SANTA CRUZ and Defendant CITY OF SANTA CRUZ

iI POLICE OFFICER Defendants in the constitutional deprivations alleged herein. 15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 CASPER. MEADOWS, SCHWARTZ & COOK



8. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendant CITY OF SANTA

CRUZ was a public entity and a person within the meeting of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

9. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendants AHLERS, DENISE

COCKRUM and BRIAN HATCHER were CITY OF SANTA CRUZ POLICE OFFICERS

who were acting under color of law and within the course and scope of their

employment with CITY OF SANTA CRUZ. They are sued in their individual

capacities.

10. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants

DOES 1 through 100, and therefore sue these Defendants by such fictitious names.

Plaintiffs will amend their Complaint when the true names and capacities of Defendant

DOES I through 100 have been ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and

on that basis allege, that Defendants DOES I through 100 are responsible in some

manner for the injuries suffered and damages incurred by Plaintiffs as alleged in this

Complaint. Any reference in this Complaint to "Defendant," "Defendants," or to a



1 specifically-named Defendant refers also to Defendants DOES 1 through 100. These

2 Defendants are sued in their individual and official capacities.

3 FACTS GIVING RISE TO THIS COMPLAINT

4 11. On May 26, 2012, Plaintiff JON INMAN and his wife, Plaintiff ANGIE

5 I INMAN, took their three children - Plaintiff TYLER INMAN, age 21; Plaintiff COREY

6 INMAN, age 17; and a daughter, age 14- and two friends of their children to the Santa

7 Cruz Beach Boardwalk amusement park in Santa Cruz, California.

8 12. The Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk is owned by the SANTA CRUZ

9 SEASIDE COMPANY. It is jointly patrolled by Defendant SANTA CRUZ SEASIDE

10 COMPANY SECURITY OFFICERS and CITY OF SANTA CRUZ POLICE OFFICERS.

11

13. Plaintiffs purchased tickets from Defendant SANTA CRUZ SEASIDE

12 COMPANY which authorized them to be at the amusement park at the time of the

13 events described herein.

14 14. At approximately 10:40 p.m., as Plaintiffs exited "Fright Night," the

15 Boardwalk’s haunted house attraction, Defendants SANTA CRUZ SEASIDE

16 COMPANY SECURITY OFFICERS WALSH and COLE confronted Plaintiff TYLER

17 INMAN.

18 15. In the presence of Plaintiff TYLER INMAN’s parents, younger siblings

19 and friends, Defendant WALSH accused him of performing a "lewd act" inside the

20 haunted house. The accusation was based on a report of a "possible lewd act" by a

21 SANTA CRUZ SEASIDE COMPANY SECURITY OFFICER who had been watching

22 the attraction’s CCTV monitors. Plaintiff TYLER INMAN and his family had been

23 together inside the haunted house, and they denied the accusation, which upset them.

24 Plaintiffs asked Defendants to review the videotape that purportedly showed Plaintiff

25 TYLER IN MAN committing a "lewd act" as it would prove that Defendants’ accusation

26 was not true.

27 16. Defendant SOLANO did review the videotape, and was indeed unable to




confirm that a lewd act had been committed. Defendant SOLANO updated the

Angie Inman, et al., v. Santa Cruz Seaside Company, et at. Complaint


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27



Walnut Creek, CA 94596 TEL (925) 947-1147 FAX (925) 947-1131

officers on scene of this fact. But rather than apologizing to Plaintiffs, Defendant

I WALSH told Plaintiffs, in a rude and aggressive manner, that he wanted them to leave

the amusement park.

17. By this time several additional SANTA CRUZ SEASIDE COMPANY

SECURITY OFFICERS, including Defendants COLE, GONZALEZ, HERNANDEZ,

KRINER, NEGRETE and SEYMOUR, and at least three Defendant CITY OF SANTA

I CRUZ POLICE OFFICERS, including Defendants AHLERS, COCKRUM and

HATCHER, had arrived on scene. While Plaintiffs were continuing to discuss the

I situation with Defendants, Defendant HATCHER crept up behind Plaintiff TYLER

INMAN and attempted to grab his wrist. Having been given no warning and unaware

who was grabbing him, Plaintiff TYLER INMAN instinctively pulled away. Defendants

responded by escalating the use of force, becoming more and more physically

aggressive. Defendant HATCHER placed Plaintiff TYLER INMAN in a head lock with

physical assistance from several other defendants. Defendant HERNANDEZ shot him

with his Taser gun twice. Defendant COCKRUM struck him repeatedly with her metal

baton. Defendant NEGRETE kicked him in the groin. Defendants broke two of

Plaintiff TYLER INMAN’s ribs, caused ligament damage, and inflicted massive

contusions and lacerations on his knee, head, and back. Defendant HATCHER then

placed Plaintiff TYLER INMAN in handcuffs.

18. When Plaintiff TYLER INMAN’s family members reacted to Defendants’

treatment of TYLER by crying out and reaching toward him, they too were subjected to

excessive force by Defendants. Defendants, including Defendants COLE,

HERNANDEZ, SEYMOUR and SOLANO, deliberately pushed Plaintiff ANGIE INMAN

against a wall, bruising her arms. Defendants grabbed her and dragged her along

when she couldn’t keep up. In so doing, they broke her wrist. Defendants handcuffed

Plaintiff ANGIE IN MAN and placed her in a paddy wagon. Her wrist became so

swollen that the handcuffs cut into her skin. Only after she made repeated requests

did Defendants loosen the handcuffs.



1 19. Defendants, including Defendants WALSH, SOLANO and VALADEZ,

forced Plaintiff JON INMAN onto the ground and Defendant WALSH applied a choke

3 hold to his neck. Plaintiff JON INMAN was beaten by Defendants until he became

4 unconscious. Defendants sprayed Olesoresin Capsicum, also known as pepper

5 spray, in Plaintiff JON INMAN’s eyes, nose, and mouth at very close range.

6 Thereafter, Defendants, including Defendants HERNANDEZ and BARRERA, failed to

7 provide Plaintiff JON INMAN with first aid. In addition to the injuries he suffered to his

8 eyes and airways, Defendants caused Plaintiff JON INMAN to suffer abrasions to his

9 feet, arms, legs, and head. Defendants then handcuffed Plaintiff JON IN MAN and

10 placed him in a paddy wagon.

11

20. When Plaintiff COREY INMAN reached for his brother during

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27



Walnut Creek, CA 94596 TEL. (925) 947-1147 FAX (925) 947-1131

I Defendants’ assault on Plaintiff TYLER INMAN, Defendants, including BARRERA,

I SEYMOUR, EMENY-SMITH and HERNANDEZ, took Plaintiff COREY INMAN to the

ground, spraining his back and scraping his knees. Defendants then arrested him.

21. Based on Defendants’ false allegations, Plaintiffs were charged with

criminal offenses. Plaintiff TYLER IN MAN was charged with battery against a police

officer, public intoxication and trespassing. Plaintiff ANGIE IN MAN was charged with

resisting arrest. Plaintiff JON IN MAN was charged with resisting arrest and battery.

Plaintiff COREY IN MAN was charged with resisting arrest and battery.

22. After Defendants handcuffed Plaintiff TYLER INMAN, he was driven in

an ambulance to Dominican Hospital where he was treated by doctors. Defendants

then took him to the Santa Cruz County Jail, where he was booked into custody.

Plaintiff TYLER INMAN was not released from the Jail until the following day, after

posting $5000 bail. After Plaintiffs ANGIE INMAN and COREY INMAN were

handcuffed, detained, advised of their rights, and asked to give a statement, they were

cited and released. Plaintiff JON INMAN was taken to Santa Cruz County Jail and

booked into custody, where he remained until 5:30 a.m. the following day, at which

point he was released from the Jail on his promise to appear in court.

Angie Inman, et at., v. Santa Cruz Seaside Company, et at. Complaint


23. Plaintiffs were required to retain criminal defense attorneys to represent

them in their criminal cases. Plaintiffs were required to participate in the criminal case,

I which caused them to miss work and school. All Plaintiffs suffered the mental stress

of knowing there were criminal charges pending against them for more than a year.

24. Finally, on June 10, 2013, at the request of the Santa Cruz County

District Attorney’s Office, all charges against Plaintiffs were dismissed. The dismissal

was due to the District Attorney’s conclusion that there was insufficient evidence that

Plaintiffs had committed any of the offenses Defendants had alleged.

DAMAGES

25. Plaintiffs suffered physical injuries, wage loss, medical expenses, future

medical expenses, emotional distress, and they were forced to pay bond and

attorney’s fees. Plaintiffs have also suffered the violation of their constitutional rights

and the loss of their sense of security, dignity, and pride as citizens and residents of

the United States of America.

26. The individually named Defendants acted with malice and oppression,

as described herein. These Defendants’ conduct was intended to harm Plaintiffs or

was despicable, carried out with a conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights and safety.

Defendants’ conduct also subjected Plaintiffs to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious

disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights. Plaintiffs therefore are entitled to recover exemplary

damages from these Defendants.

27. Plaintiffs have retained civil attorneys to pursue their rights as asserted

in this Complaint. Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees

incurred in the prosecution of this action against Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 - 4th Amendment

(By All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)

28. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as




though fully set forth in this claim for relief.

Angie Inman, et al., v. Santa Cruz Seaside Company, et at. Complaint

I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

29. Plaintiffs claim damages for the injuries set forth above under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 against all of the Defendants for violation of Plaintiffs’ 4th Amendment

constitutional rights, including their rights to be free from excessive force and unlawful

I arrest.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs seek relief as hereafter set forth.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 - 4th and 14th Amendment

(By Plaintiff JON INMAN Against Defendants HERNANDEZ and BARRERA And Does I through 100)

30. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth in this claim for relief.

31. Plaintiff JON INMAN claims damages for the injuries set forth above

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants HERNANDEZ and BARRERA and Does

1 through 100 for violation of Plaintiff’s 4 and 14th Amendment constitutional right to

adequate medical care.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks relief as hereafter set forth.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 - Monell

(By Plaintiffs Against Defendants SANTA CRUZ SEASIDE COMPANY and CITY OF SANTA CRUZ and Does I through 100)

32. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint

as though fully set forth in this claim for relief.

33. At all times relevant, Defendants SANTA CRUZ SEASIDE COMPANY

and CITY OF SANTA CRUZ and Does I through 100 developed and maintained

policies or customs exhibiting deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of

people in Santa Cruz and people visiting the Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk, which

caused the violations of Plaintiffs’ rights.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs seek relief as hereafter set forth. 26

27


2121 N. California Blvd., Sude 1020


FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Assault

(By All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)




1


2 35. On November 27, 2012, Defendant CITY OF SANTA CRUZ received the

3 government claims Plaintiffs timely filed pursuant to the provisions of the California

4 Tort Claims Act, California Government Code §§ 910 et seq. Defendant CITY OF

5 SANTA CRUZ denied the claims by letter dated January 23, 2013.

6 36. The SANTA CRUZ SEASIDE COMPANY SECURITY OFFICERS and

7 the CITY OF SANTA CRUZ POLICE OFFICERS committed their alleged actions in

8 the course and scope of their employment with SANTA CRUZ SEASIDE COMPANY

9 and CITY OF SANTA CRUZ.

10, 37. The CITY OF SANTA CRUZ POLICE OFFICER Defendants are liable

11 pursuant to California Government Code § 820.1(a), which renders a public employee

12 liable for injury caused by his or her act or omission to the same extent as a private

13 person. The CITY OF SANTA CRUZ is liable pursuant to Government Code § 815.2,

14 which renders a public entity liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission

15 of an employee of a public entity within the scope of his or her employment if the act

16 or omission would give rise to a cause of action against the public employee.

17 38. On May 26, 2012, Defendants, and each of them, intended to harm or

18 come into offensive contact with Plaintiffs.

19 39. Plaintiffs reasonably apprehended that Defendants were about to touch

20 them in a harmful or offensive manner.

21 40. Defendants also threatened to touch Plaintiffs in a harmful or offensive

22 manner and Plaintiffs reasonably apprehended that each Defendant was about to

23 carry out that threat.

24 41. Plaintiffs did not consent to the conduct of any of the Defendants and

25 were harmed thereby.

26 42. Each Defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing the

27 alleged harm.

28 CASPER, MEADOWS, SCHWARTZ& COOK


Walnut Creek. CA 94596 TEL (925) 947-1147 FAX (925) 947-1131




I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27



Walnut CreeK, CA 94596 TEL: (925) 947-1147 FAX (925) 947-1131

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Battery

(By All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants) 43. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as


44. On May 26, 2012, Defendants, and each of them, touched Plaintiffs or

caused Plaintiffs to be touched with the intent of harming or offending Plaintiffs.

45. Plaintiffs did not consent to the conduct of any of the Defendants.

46. Plaintiffs were harmed by Defendants’ conduct.

47. A reasonable person in Plaintiffs’ situation would have been offended by

Defendants’ conduct.

48. Each Defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing the

alleged harm.


SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF False Arrest and Illegal Imprisonment

(By All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants) 49. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as


50. On May 26, 2012, Defendants, and each of them, arrested Plaintiffs

without process and prohibited Plaintiffs from moving freely.

51. Defendants deprived Plaintiffs of this freedom of movement by use of

force, threats of force, and unreasonable duress.

52. Plaintiffs did not consent to their false arrest and false imprisonment and

were harmed thereby.

53. Each Defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing the

alleged harm.


I’

ll



I

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress

2 (By All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)

3 54. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as

4 though fully set forth in this claim for relief.

5 55. On May 26, 2012, Defendants, and each of them, either engaged in

6 outrageous conduct intended to cause Plaintiffs emotional distress or acted with

7 reckless disregard of the probability that Plaintiffs would suffer emotional distress

8 56. Plaintiffs suffered severe emotional distress.


10 I alleged severe emotional distress.

11


12 EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Negligence


14 58. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as

15 .1 though fully set forth in this claim for relief.

16 59. On May 26, 2012, Defendants, and each of them, were negligent in

17 doing the acts alleged in this Complaint.

18 60. Plaintiffs were injured as a result of that negligence.

19 61. As a proximate result of that negligence, Plaintiffs suffered damages

20 including severe emotional distress.


22 alleged damages including severe emotional distress.

23 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs seek relief as hereafter set forth.

24 NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF California Civil Code §§ 52, 52.1



27

28 CASPER, MEADOWS. SCHWARTZ & COOK


Walnut Creek, CA94596 TEL: (925) 947-1 147 FAX (925) 947-1131

II though fully set forth in this claim for relief.



I 64. On May 26, 2012, Defendants, and each of them, using threats,

2 coercion and intimidation, interfered with and threatened to interfere with Plaintiffs’

3 rights guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments tothe United States

4 Constitution and Art. 1, § 13 of the California Constitution.

5 65. The actions of these Defendants, and each of them, was a substantial

6 factor in causing Plaintiffs to sustain harm and the special and general damages

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27




which Plaintiffs will establish at trial.

66. The individually named Defendants acted with malice and oppression.

These Defendants’ conduct was intended to harm Plaintiffs or was despicable, carried

out with a conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights or safety. Defendants’ conduct also

subjected Plaintiffs to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’

rights. Plaintiffs are entitled to such statutory damages allowed by California Civil

Code §§ 52, and 52.1(b).


1. For general, pecuniary and special damages, according to proof;

2. For exemplary damages against all individually sued Defendants;

3. For statutory damages pursuant to California Civil Code §§ 52.1

and 52;

4. For reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 on

Plaintiffs’ First, Second and Third Claims for Relief.

5. For reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to California Civil Code

§§ 51.2 and 52 on Plaintiffs’ Tenth Claim for Relief.

6. For prejudgment interest pursuant to Civil Code § 3288, or as

otherwise permitted by law;

7. For costs of suit; and

8. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and

proper.

II



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27




DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial in this action.

Dated: July It, 2013 / ( Andrew C. Schwartz CASPER, MEADOWS, SCHWARTZ & COOK Attorneys for Plaintiffs



inman complaint

Documents

tyler inman

jon inman

plaintiffs angie inman

santa cruz seaside company

city of santa cruz

plaintiff corey inman

state of california

north california