GERAGOS fo? APC HISTORIC ENGINE Co, No.28 644 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET 1.05 ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017?341 1 GERAGOS GERAGOS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION LAWYERS HISTORIC ENGINE Co. No.28 644 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET Los ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90017-341 1 TELEPHONE (213) 625-3900 FACSIMILE (213) 625-1 600 MARK J. GERAGOS SBN 108325 BEN J. MEISELAS SBN 277412 FRIDA HJORT SBN 298474 COPY Attorneys for Plaintiffs LETICIA DELAROSA, an individual; RAMIRO M. VILLEGAS, an individual, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF KERN LETICIA DELAROSA, individually and as successor in interest to the ESTATE OF RAMIRO JAMES RAMIRO M. VILLEGAS, individually and as successor in interest to the ESTATE OF RAMIRO JAMES and THE ESTATE OF RAMIRO JAMES VILLEGAS, Plaintiffs, VS. CITY OF RICK FRANK EDGAR VALERIA AARON and DOES 1-50, Defendants. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: l. SURVIVAL - VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS 42 U.S.C. ?1983 2. SURVIVAL - VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS (MONELL CLAIM) 3. VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS- FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIP VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIP (MONELL) 5. SURVIVAL - VIOLATION OF CIVIL CODE ?52.1 6. WRONGFUL DEATH NEGLIGENCE 7. NELIGENCE 8. TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BODY DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL -1- COMPLAINT GERAGOS Ed GERAGOS, APC HISTORIC ENGINE Co. No. 28 644 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET L05 ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90017-341 November 13, 2014, the Bakers?eld Police Department unlawfully tazed, shot, and killed Ramiro James Villegas Delarosa (?James?), a 22?year-old unarmed Hispanic male. James was struck by ?ve bullets, one through his forehead and another piercing his groin area, while he was standing defenseless and with his arms in the air. Eyewitness accounts and video recorded at the scene con?rm that James made no threatening movements and complied with all police instructions prior to his killing at the hands of the Bakers?eld Police Department. 2. After James? violent and unwarranted death, his body was transported to Kern Medical Center for an autopsy. While at Kern Medical Center, James? body was desecrated by another Bakers?eld police of?cer, Defendant Aaron Stringer, who tickled his feet and touched his head while stating love playing with dead bodies.? Defendant Stringer later explained his abhorrent conduct under the guise of ?training? purposes. Traumatizing the family, community, and the nation, the conduct actually tampered with parts of James? body that were the subject of the coroner?s investigation into the Bakers?eld Police Department?s shooting of an unarmed man in the head. 3. Sadly, this shooting is part of the ?shoot ?rst, avoid questions later? attitude and ?cover up culture? that has pervaded the police force in this action and in numerous other shootings of unarmed minorities. James? senseless murder is an example of a radicalized police force, indoctrinated into a lack of respect for citizens in moments of life and death. Despite killing their son, and admittedly desecrating his body, to this date the Bakers?eld Police Department has not so much as offered an apology to James? parents. James? parents Leticia Delarosa and Ramiro M. Villegas bring this Complaint on James? behalf. THE PARTIES 4. Plaintiff Leticia Delarosa is the mother and heir to Decedent Ramiro James Villegas. 5. Plaintiff Ramiro M. Villegas is the father and heir to Decedent Ramiro James Villegas. 2 COMPLAINT GERAGOS Ed GERAGOS, APC HISTORIC Co. NO. 28 644 SOUTH STREET LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90017?341 6. At all times herein mentioned, the City of Bakers?eld was a governmental entity organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. 7. Defendant Rick Wimbish, at all relevant times, was a police of?cer employed by the City of Bakers?eld acting under color of authority. 8. Defendant Frank McIntyre, at all relevant times, was a police of?cer employed by the City of Bakers?eld acting under color of authority. 9. Defendant Edgar Aguilera, at all relevant times, was a police of?cer employed by the City of Bakers?eld acting under color of authority. 10. Defendant Valeria Robles, at all relevant times, was a police of?cer employed by the City of Bakers?eld acting under color of authority. 11. Defendant Aaron Stringer, at all relevant times, was a police of?cer employed by the City of Bakers?eld acting under color of authority. 12. named herein as DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and therefore sue said Defendants by such Plaintiffs are unaware of the true names and capacities of the Defendants ?ctitious names. Plaintiffs will seek leave of court to amend this complaint to allege true names and capacities of said Defendants when the same are ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the aforesaid factiously named Defendants are responsible in some manner for the happenings and occurrences hereinafter alleged, and the Plaintiffs? damages and injuries as herein alleged were caused by the conduct of said Defendants. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 13. The acts that caused Plaintiffs? damages as alleged herein all occurred in the County of Kern, within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of Kern County. 14. This Court has jurisdiction over the present matter because, as delineated within this Complaint, the nature of the claims and amounts in controversy meet the requirements for unlimited jurisdiction in the Superior Court of Kern County. 15. Pursuant to Government Code section 910, Plaintiffs Ramiro M. Villegas and Leticia Delarosa timely ?led individual claims for damages relating to the present action 3 COMPLAINT GERAGOS f5 GERAGOS, APC HISTORIC ENGINE Co. NO. 28 644 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET Los ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90017341 1 with Defendant City of Bakers?eld on February 6, 2015. The City of Bakers?eld did not respond within 45 days, and Plaintiff timely ?led this action on June 2, 2015. FACTUAL BACKGROUD The Life and Killing of James Delarosa 16. James was a dedicated churchgoer and committed to the service of others. Aged only 22, he lived with and took care of his ill mother. He was respected by his peers and loved by his family, and was a constant inspiration for the religious faith of others. Accordingly, he had no prior history of criminal conduct whatsoever. 17. On the evening of November 13, 2014, James was driving his Jeep Liberty home to care for his mother. While making his way to the house, Bakers?eld Police Of?cers, including Defendants Edgar Aguilera, Frank McIntyre, Rick Wimbish, and Valeria Robles, attempted to pull him over. Eventually the of?cers cornered James at the corner of Mt. Vernon Avenue and State Route 178, causing his vehicle to strike a light pole. 18. After hitting the light pole, James exited his vehicle and complied with all of the of?cers? commands. He raised his hands in the air, demonstrating that he had no weapon, and was not physically threatening the of?cers. Numerous eyewitness accounts and video recorded at the scene con?rm that James was not threatening the safety of any of the of?cers present or attempting to reach for a weapon. As one eyewitness described: i asked Wit. 1 what the suspect did when he exited his vehicle. Wi t. 3. said the suspect exited. and placed his hands up by his shoulders and could hear the saspeei and officers yelling at one another, but {torrid not hear what the saspect or of?cers were saying. cgnes?nned Wit. 1 about he: seeing the suspect being raised. White 19. A second eyewitness described James? conduct: I asked Witness 2 if she actuaiiy observed RAMIRO VILLEGAS exit iris vehicle and she told. me she did. asked her if she observed. his exit the driver?s side- she said site did. I asked her what WERE) VELLEGAS did when he exited the vehiete and she indicated with her that he held his; arms out to his side. She said it appeared to her that he gave up anti then stated that he was acting ?hard?. She stated was when the officer?s shot him. Easked her if she observed tin-ow anything or (in anything and she stated he just ?threw? his hands up. She said RAMIRO WLLEGAS than waiked towards the of?cers with his hands in the air. 4 COMPLAINT GERAGOS GERAGOS, APC ENGINE C0. No.28 644 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET 1.05 ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-3341 1 20. That same eyewitness continued: I asked Witness 2 . what happens next and she suited the of?cers shot RAMIRO VILLEGAS. I [asked her VILLEGAS did anything before he was shot and she stated he threw his hands on. again demonstrating with her arms outstretched away from. her body slightiy above shoulder height. She told me this surprised her because RAMIRO VILLEGAS had just been involved in a car wreck and she was wondering what he was doing. tasked her if she observed RAMIRO VILLEGAS do anything else with his hands and she said she did not. She told me she did not see any weapons and she did not see anything in his hands. i asked her if she observed him reach for anything or bend over and she stated she did not. 21. A third eyewitness stated: I asked Witness 3 where RAMIRO VILLEGAS was and he told me RAMIRO VILLEGAS was walking towards the of?cers from the Suspect vehieie towards the middie of the police cars. I asked. him what RAMIRO VILLEGAS was doing and he outstretched his arms to the side and said he was doing this. He stated it appeared that RAMIRO VILLEGAS was saying ?what's up" or something and he was trying to be brave. He said that was when the of?cer?s shot him. {asked him if he observed RAMIRO VILLEGAS do anything and he nude the motions again with his arms and said "just that". i asked Witness 3 1 if he eouid hear RAMIRO say anything and he said he could not hear anything. He then stated. he heard the gunshots and that was it. I asked him if he heard the of?cer's say anything and he said he did not. I asked him if he couid tell. if there was any conversation back and forth and he said he could not and that it happened pretty quick. 22. That same eyewitness added: I asked Witness 3 i. it? he ever observed RAMIRO VILLEGAS reach down towards his Waistband and he stated he did not. said he was not really paying attention andi asked. him if he was paying more attention to the police cars or RAMIRO He told me he was watching the entire scene. I asked him if there could have been a time when RAMIRO VILLEGAS did something that he eouid not see and he told me he watched him the entire time and it was pretty clear. He stated he did not think RAMIRO had his hands in his pockets and that his hands were at his side. I asked him ifhe could see what was in RAMIRO hands and he told me there was nothing- Witness 3 I said VILLEGAS was wearing a tong sleeve ?annel shirt and his hands were open. 23. Rather than effectuating proper questioning or maintaining the non-violent nature of the traf?c stop, Defendant Of?cer Rick Wimbish unexpectedly deployed his taser on James. An eyewitness observed that the taser was used prior to any other use of force: Witness 1 told me when she looked fonvard again she ohsewed the snspeet on the ground. I asked her how she knew there was a taser and she stated she observed them (Of?cers) start n?'with a taser. I asked her ifshe could further describe this and she stated she knew they (Q?icm) started off with a ?taser thing". Witness 1 stated she aiso heard sounds and could not distinguish if it. was the guns or the taser. She stated they (Officers) did the taser first and the guns later. Witness 1 stated it was oil a blur and happened. within a couple of seconds. 24. None of the reports produced by the other of?cers involved mention Of?cer Wimbish?s use of the taser. These willful omissions are an attempt to cover up the of?cers? 5 - COMPLAINT GERAGOS GERAGOS, APC ENGINE Co. No. 28 644 SOUTH STREET Los ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90017841 1 r?t t?-unlawful escalation of violence and unnecessary use of lethal force in the following moments. Of?cer Wimbish deployed the taser in plain view of all present, shouted ?taser!? prior to ?ring, and the taser itself actually sprayed bright pink and yellow confetti throughout the scene. 25. Of?cer Wimbish?s taser failed to properly deploy, however, and James remained in a standing position with his arms raised. Instead of continuing to use non-lethal force?or using no force at all, since James was not threatening the of?cers?the of?cers resorted to killing James, as the Bakers?eld Police Department has done. many times before. 26. The of?cers ?red nine shots at James from a distance of at least 10 feet. Five rounds struck James, including one bullet through his left forehead, which fractured his skull I and lacerated his brain, and another piercing his groin area. The coroner?s report concluded: awn?u.? H-.. . FINAL 1. Multiple gunshot wounds one to the head. one to the right shoulder. one to the left abdomen, one to the left pelvls, and one to the left upper leg. Major injuries Included extensive fractures of the skull and laceration of the brain. Three medium caliber bullets recovered. ll. Other inf-ones: Tazor shot on left upper-arm. - 6 - COMPLAINT l?dI?dr?ir?nI?dr?n M-erJNr?n 644 SOUTH FIGUEROA LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-341 I HISTORIC ENGINE CO. NO. 28 GERAGOS GERAGOSfactual diagram produced by the Bakers?eld Police Department describes the scene following James? killing as such: $51-17! EB OHM 28. The numbered locations of evidence are cataloged as: I. spent 9m shell casing ?Green 'i?mser blast door 1 - spent 5?qu shall casing wire with dart [Hood of win}? 5590} I Spent 9mm shell casing 13. Second Tum wire at. 3 - spent 9mm shell casing 14? am from Ramiro Villcgas 7 I spent 9mm she-1 casing 15. Khaki pams [Next to blood} I5. I - spent 9mm she-fl (:35ng (ibapstick (Next to blood) I spent 9mm shell casing H, White Whom: 4543 3. - spam 53mm shell casing 18? Blue mum shoes 9. - spent 9mm shell casing 1?1 Coins {Radium-s, alanickcl, 2-?pcuniea) m. (Limes: Tam blast door '39- Front Ems cover For sum Jeep 71, Pink confetti ?mn ?Faser deployment {Front passenger side of veh??sfml l. 32.. Pink cmueui Rum Tater deployment (From passenger side of vch?SSM} Yclinw confetti from ?I?aser demth {Near blood) .. 7 COMPLAINT HISTORLC ENGINE Co. No. 28 644 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90017-341 I GERAGOS GERAGOS, APC 29. The above diagram demonstrates the signi?cant distance between the of?cers and James when shooting occurred, the large number of shell casings strewn about the scene, and the wide coverage area of the taser?s confetti that put of?cers on notice that non-lethal force was being deployed. 30. After collapsing to the ground, Villegas was left to die with neither Defendant police of?cers nor anyone else administering any ?rst aid to him. As a result of Defendants? violently heinous conduct, Villegas tragically lost his life within thirty minutes of the shooting. The Tampering and Desecration of James Delarosa?s Body 31. The Bakers?eld Police Department?s abuse of James did not end when they prematurely took his young and promising life. Later that evening, Defendant Of?cer Aaron Stringer brought his eleventh-week police trainee, Lindy DeGeare, to Kern Medical Center to View James? corpse under the guise of training purposes. Instead of training DeGeare, Defendant Stringer touched the bottom of James? feet, saying ?tickle tickle? and stating that he ?loves playing with dead bodies? while laughing. Defendant Stringer afterwards told Ms. DeGeare that ?if detectives ask if you?ve seen the body, just say no.? 32. A subsequent report outlines what Ms. Degeare witnessed: toes of the right foot and commented on rigor mom's not. having set vet. Of?cer 2:15;: Ef?cer 33. The report continues: head returning to its original turned to the left position. Of?cer EARE said it was at about this time Senior Of?cer STINGER said he "loves playing with bodies", and laughed. Of?cer described a fold 8 COMPLAINT GERAGOS 63? GERAGOS. AFC HISTORIC ENGINE CO. No.28 644 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-341 1 34. Beyond being morally repugnant and wholly disrespectful towards James and his family, Defendant Stringer?s conduct constituted blatant tampering with the evidence surrounding the circumstances of James? death. Defendant Stringer manipulated James? head and left leg?both places that James received bullet wounds: 1. Guns-hot wound of?head; Enticing: The entrance wound is located at the lea forehead 1 112lnchea beiow the top of head and 2 10 inches to the left of the mtdline. The entrance wound consists oi 112 inch diameter circular perforation at the superior and the irregular laceration inferior, surrounded with a 1118 inch marginal abrasion at the superior edge at the entrance. There was no soot and no crippling on the skin surrounding this wound. 5. Gunshot wound of left upper leg; Entram: The entrance wound is located at the anterior left upper leg. 35 112 inches below the top of the head and 8 1l2 inches to the left of the mtdline. It consists of 1I2 inch diameter ski-n perforation with 1116 inch wide marginal abrasion. There is no seat and no etippling on the skin surrounding this wound. 35. The location of bullet wounds on James? body are important sites for acquiring forensic data and ballistic information. Notably, the Coroner?s Autopsy Report makes no reference to Defendant Stringer?s presence or how his tampering might affect the conclusions drawn from the autopsy. The Bakers?eld Police Department?s Pattern and Practice of Violating Constitutional Rights 36. Sadly, James? killing is yet another tragic consequence of the Bakers?eld Police Department?s ?shoot first, avoid questions later? attitude and ?cover?up culture? that has pervaded the police force in this action and in numerous other shootings of unarmed minorities. 37. James? death is the direct result of Defendant City of Bakers?eld?s radicalized police force. Each of?cer is indoctrinated, beginning at the police academy, into a lack of respect for citizens in moments of life and death. Of?cers enter a trigger-happy culture in which allegations that a suspect was ?reaching for his waistband? or acting in a threatening manner are used to retroactively justify the killing of unarmed and compliant victims. Despite killing their son, and admittedly desecrating his body, to date the Bakers?eld Police 9 COMPLAINT GERAGOS 63? GERAGOS, APC HISTORIC ENGINE Co. NO. 28 644 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90017-341 I Department has not so much as offered an apology to James? parents. 38. As an example of this widespread practice of insuf?cient training and covering up of police wrongdoing, Bakers?eld Police shot and killed Jorge Ramirez on September 16, 2013. Mr. Ramirez was acting as a con?dential informant and assisting in the apprehension of a suspect by interrogating that suspect in a vehicle. Although the Bakers?eld Police Department was aware that Mr. Ramirez was in the car with the suspect, the of?cers, including Defendant Wimbish, opened ?re on the vehicle. Struck by the gun?re, Mr. Ramirez exited the vehicle and was again shot multiple times as he attempmted to ?ee, including one shot that struck him from behind. In total, Bakers?eld police shot Mr. Ramirez ten times. He was not armed. 39. Moreover, Bakers?eld police attempted to conceal the fact that Mr. Ramirez was working for them as a con?dential informant in order to cover up their egregious misconduct and wrongful use of excessive force. This example of the department?s ?shoot ?rst, avoid questions later? policy is another in the line of over a dozen deadly shootings of unarmed citizens in Bakers?eld over the past ?ve years. The Bakers?eld Police Department?s lack of accountability and complete lack of respect for the community has reached an epidemic scale, and has made civil rights abuses and unjusti?ed killings the norm in Bakers?eld. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION SURVIVAL VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS 42 U.S.C. ?1983 (Plaintiffs against Defendants Wimbish, McIntyre, Aguilera, Robles, and Does 1 through 25) 40. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 41. Defendants were, at all relevant times, law enforcement of?cers with the City of Bakers?eld Police Department who were acting under color of state law. 42. Plaintiffs bring this claim for relief in their capacities as the successors-in- interest and personal representatives of the decedent Ramiro James Villegas Delarosa. -10- COMPLAINT HISTORIC ENGINE Co, No. 28 644 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET L05 ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90017-341 1 GERAGOS 6f GERAGOS. APC h) I?h P?l r?A r?n In43. The foregoing claim for relief arose in decedent?s favor, and decedent would have been the plaintiff with respect to this claim for relief had he lived. 44. Defendants, acting under color of state law, deprived the decedent of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, including those enumerated in and secured by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, by subjecting the decedent to excessive force when they shot and killed him. Speci?cally, after being cornered by Defendant police of?cers, decedent exited his car in a nonthreatening manner with his arms raised to his shoulders and nothing in his hands. Defendant of?cers did not give decedent any verbal instructions to proceed differently. Despite being unarmed and non-threatening, Defendant of?cers chose not to de-escalate the situation in a proper and non-life-threatening manner. Defendant Wimbish instead deployed a taser at decedent, which did not work, and prompted the remaining Defendant of?cers to use excessive and deadly force and ?re nine rounds at decedent. Decedent was hit ?ve times, including once in the forehead and once in the groin, and died as a result. 45. The wrongful acts alleged herein above of defendant police of?cers were the cause of decedent?s death. 46. As a proximate result of the foregoing wrongful acts of defendants, and each of them, the decedent sustained general damages, including pain and suffering, and a loss of the enjoyment of life and other hedonic damages, in an amount in accordance with proof. 47. In doing the foregoing wrongful acts, defendants, and each of them, acted in reckless and callous disregard for the constitutional rights of decedent. The wrongful acts, and each of them, were willful, oppressive, fraudulent and malicious, thus warranting the award of punitive damages against each individual defendant in an amount adequate to punish the wrongdoers and deter future misconduct. 48. As further damage, Plaintiffs have and will incur attorneys? fees and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988 are entitled to recover costs and fees in pursuing rights for a violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983. 1 1 COMPLAINT GERAGOS Ed GERAGOS. APC HISTORIC ENGINE Co, NC) 28 644 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90017-341 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION SURVIVAL VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS 42 U.S.C. ?1983 MONELL CLAIM (Plaintiffs against the City of Bakers?eld and Does 25 through 50) 49. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs of this complaint, as though fully set forth herein. 50. Plaintiffs bring this claim for relief in their capacities as the successors-in- interest and personal representatives of the decedent Ramiro James Villegas Delarosa. 51. Defendants, City of Bakers?eld and Does 25 through 50, knowingly, with gross negligence, and in deliberate indifference to the Constitutional rights of citizens, maintain and permit an of?cial policy and custom of permitting the occurrence of the types of wrongs set forth hereinabove and hereafter. 52. These policies and customs include, but are not limited to, the deliberately indifferent training of its law enforcement of?cers, the express and/or tacit encouragement of excessive force, the rati?cation of police misconduct, and the failure to conduct adequate unbiased investigations ofpolice misconduct such that future violations do not occur. 53. Defendants, City of Bakers?eld and Does 25 through 50, were deliberately indifferent in training law enforcement of?cers in the use of excessive force, deadly force, and medical aid, and knew their failure to adequately train law enforcement of?cers made it highly predictable that law enforcement of?cers would engage in conduct that would deprive persons such as decedent Ramiro James Villegas Delarosa and Plaintiffs of their rights. Speci?cally, the Bakers?eld Police Department has a permissive attitude toward shooting suspects without proper inquiry into the necessity of such deadly force. In order to conceal such misconduct, the Bakers?eld Police Department routinely alleges that suspects acted in a way that would permit the deadly use of force, including ?reaching for the waistband? and acting in a threatening manner towards of?cers. Such conduct is well-known and permitted by the Bakers?eld Police Department, and has resulted in a dozen deadly shootings by its of?cers in the past ?ve years alone. 12 COMPLAINT GERAGOS GERAGOS, APC HISTORIC ENGINE Co. No.28 644 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90017-341 1 v?d r?a y?4 54. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that the customs and policies were the moving force behind the violations of Plaintiffs? and decedent?s rights. Based upon the principles set forth in Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, the City of Bakers?eld and Does 25 through 50 are liable for all of the injuries sustained by decedent and Plaintiffs as set forth above. 55. As a proximate result of the foregoing wrongful acts of defendants, and each of them, the decedent sustained general damages, including pain and suffering, and a loss of the enjoyment of life and other hedonic damages, in an amount in accordance with proof. 56. Due to the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiffs have been required to incur attorney?s fees and will continue to incur attorneys? fees, and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988 are entitled to recovery of said fees. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS 42 U.S.C. 1983 DEPRIVATION OF THE RIGHTS OF PLAIN TIFFS TO A FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DECEDENT (Plaintiffs against Defendants Wimbish, McIntyre, Aguilera, Robles, and Does 1 through 25) 57. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as though fully set forth herein. 58. Defendants, acting under color of state law, deprived the decedent of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, including those enumerated in and secured by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, by subjecting the decedent to excessive force when they shot and killed him. Specifically, after being cornered by Defendant police of?cers, decedent exited his car in a nonthreatening manner with his arms raised to his shoulders and nothing in his hands. Defendant of?cers did not give decedent any verbal instructions to proceed differently. Despite being unarmed and non-threatening, Defendant officers chose not to de-escalate the situation in a proper and non-life-threatening manner. Defendant Wimbish instead deployed a taser at decedent, which did not work, and prompted the remaining Defendant officers to use excessive and - 13 COMPLAINT Co. No. 28 644 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET L05 ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-341 I GERAGOS 65? GERAGOSdeadly force and ?re nine rounds at decendent. Decedent was hit ?ve times, including once in the forehead and once in the groin, and died as a result. 59. As a result of the foregoing wrongful acts of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiffs sustained general damages, including grief, emotional distress and pain and suffering and loss of comfort and society, and special damages, including loss of support, in an amount in accordance with proof. 60. In doing the foregoing wrongful acts, Defendants, and each of them, acted in reckless and callous disregard for the Constitutional rights of Plaintiffs when they killed Plaintiffs? son. The wrongful acts, and each of them, were willful, oppressive, fraudulent, and malicious, thus warranting the award of punitive damages against each individual defendant in an amount adequate to punish the wrongdoers and deter future misconduct. 61. As further damage, Plaintiffs have and will incur attorneys? fees and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988 are entitled to recover costs and fees in pursuing rights for a violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS 42 U.S.C. 1983 DEPRIVATION OF THE RIGHTS OF PLAINTIFFS TO A FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DECEDENT - MONELL (Plaintiffs against the City of Bakers?eld and DOES 25 through 50) 62. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as though fully set forth herein. 63. Defendants, City of Bakers?eld, and Does 25 through 50, knowingly and with gross negligence, maintain and permit of?cial policies and customs which allow the occurrence of the types of wrongs set forth hereinabove and below, all in deliberate indifference to the Constitutional rights of citizens. 64. These policies and customs include, but are not limited to, the deliberately indifferent training of its law enforcement of?cers, the express and/or tacit encouragement of excessive force, the rati?cation of police misconduct, and the failure to conduct adequate 14 COMPLAINT HJSTORIC ENGINE Co. No.28 644 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-341 1 GERAGOS {d GERAGOS. APC 00 \l 43 DJ unbiased investigations of police misconduct such that future violations do not occur. Speci?cally, the Bakers?eld Police Department has a permissive attitude toward shooting suspects without proper inquiry into the necessity of such deadly force. In order to conceal such misconduct, the Bakers?eld Police Department routinely alleges that suspects acted in a way that would permit the deadly use of force, including reaching for the waistband and acting in a threatening manner towards of?cers. Such conduct has been well-known and permitted by the Bakers?eld Police Department for a number of years, and has resulted in a dozen deadly shootings by the Bakers?eld Police Department in the past ?ve years alone. 65. Defendants, City of Bakers?eld and Does 25 through 50, were deliberately indifferent in training law enforcement of?cers in the use of excessive force, deadly force, and medical aid, and knew their failure to adequately train law enforcement of?cers made it highly predictable that law enforcement of?cers would engage in conduct that w0uld deprive persons such as decedent Ramiro James Villegas Delarosa and Plaintiffs of their rights. Speci?cally, the Bakers?eld Police Department has a permissive attitude toward shooting suspects without proper inquiry into the necessity of such deadly force. In order to conceal such misconduct, the Bakers?eld Police Department routinely alleges that suspects acted in a way that would permit the deadly use of force, including ?reaching for the waistband? and acting in a threatening manner towards of?cers. Such conduct is well-known and permitted by the Bakers?eld Police Department, and has resulted in a dozen deadly shootings by its of?cers in the past ?ve years alone 66. In spite of Plaintiffs? ?ling of a claim, the City of Bakers?eld failed to make an unbiased investigation, or take any action in preserving Plaintiffs? or Decedent?s rights, or verify misconduct and discipline of?cers for the misconduct. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that the customs and policies were the moving force behind the violations of Plaintiffs? and decedent?s rights. Based upon the principles set forth in Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, the City of Bakers?eld is liable for all of the injuries sustained by Plaintiffs as set forth above. 15 COMPLAINT GERAGOS 8 GERAGOS, APC HISTORIC ENGINE Co. No. 28 644 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90017-341 67. James Villegas? demise and the resulting loss to Plaintiffs, thereby causing Plaintiffs to be In acting as alleged herein, Defendants, and each of them, caused Ramiro damaged in an amount to be determined at the time of trial. 68. Due to the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiffs have been required to incur attorneys? fees and will continue to incur attorneys' fees, and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988 are entitled to recovery of said fees. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION SURVIVAL VIOLATION OF CIVIL CODE ?52.1 (Plaintiffs against Defendants City of Bakers?eld, Wimbish, McIntyre, Aguilera, Robles, and Does 1 through 50)7 69. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs of this complaint, as though fully set forth herein. 70. Defendants Wimbish, McIntyre, Aguilera, Robles, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, acting within the scope of their duties as City of Bakers?eld employees, caused the death of Ramiro James Villegas Delarosa. 7 1. Defendant City of Bakersfield is hereby liable for the acts, omissions, and conduct of its employees, including Defendants herein, whose negligent conduct was a cause in the death of the decedent, pursuant to California Government Code section 815.2. 72. Plaintiffs ?led timely claims pursuant to California Government Code section 910, et seq. As those claims were rejected within the past six months, this action is timely. 73. Plaintiffs are the proper parties with standing as successors-in?interest and on behalf of the decedent pursue the claims of the decedent based on a violation of his rights. 74. The conduct of Defendants constituted interference by threats, intimidation, or coercion, or attempted interference, with the exercise of enjoyment by decedent Ramiro James Villegas Delarosa of rights secured by the Constitution of laws of the United States, or secured by the Constitution or laws of the State of California, including interference with decedent's rights to be secure in his person and free from the use of excessive force under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, Article 1 Section 13 of the 16 COMPLAINT D??P??b?II?lb??b?i 644 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET 900174341 1 HISTORIC ENGINE Co. No.28 GERAGOS GERAGOSConstitution of California, California Civil Code section 43, and the right of protection from bodily restraint and harm. Speci?cally, after being cornered by Defendant police of?cers, decedent exited his car in a nonthreatening manner with his arms raised to his shoulders and nothing in his hands. Defendant of?cers did not give decedent any verbal instructions to proceed differently. Despite being unarmed and non-threatening, Defendant of?cers chose not to de-escalate the situation in a proper and non?life-threatening manner. Defendant Wimbish instead deployed a taser at decedent, which'did not work, and prompted the remaining Defendant of?cers to use excessive and deadly force and ?re nine rounds at decedent. Decedent was hit ?ve times, including once in the forehead and once in the groin, and died as a result. 75. As a direct cause of Defendants? conduct, the decedent?s rights pursuant to California Civil Code section 52.1 were violated, causing injuries and damages in an amount to be proved at the time of trial. 76. Due to the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiffs have been required to incur attorneys' fees and will continue to incur attorneys' fees, and pursuant to California Civil Code section 52.1 are entitled to recovery of said fees. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE WRONGFUL DEATH (Plaintiffs against Defendants City of Bakers?eld, Wimbish, McIntyre, Aguilera, Robles, and Does 1 through 50) 77. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs of this complaint, as though fully set forth herein. 78. Defendants Wimbish, McIntyre, Aguilera, Robles, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, acting within the scope of their duties as City of Bakers?eld employees, caused the death of Ramiro James Villegas Delarosa. 79. Defendant City of Bakers?eld is hereby liable for the acts, omissions and conduct of its employees, including Defendants herein, whose negligent conduct was a cause in the death of the decedent, pursuant to California Government Code section 815.2. 17 COMPLAINT GERAGOS 8 GERAGOS, APC HISTORIC ENGINE CO. No. 28 644 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90017341 1 80. Plaintiffs ?led timely claims pursuant to California Government Code section 910 et. seq. As those claims were rejected within the past six months, this action is timely. 81. Plaintiffs are the proper parties with standing pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 377.60 and hereby pursue their remedies for wrongful death against Defendants, and each of them, including pecuniary loss and other compensable injuries resulting from the loss of the society, comfort, attention, services, and support of the decedent. 82. The negligence of Defendants was also responsible in part for the death of Ramiro James Villegas Delarosa by acts or omissions contributing to his demise including, but not limited to, the reckless use of force and ?rearms against Ramiro James Villegas Delarosa causing his untimely death. Specifically, Defendants owed Ramiro James Villegas Delarosa the duty to conduct themselves using the appropriate amount force. Defendants negligently or recklessly breached this duty when Defendant Wimbish fired a taser at Ramiro James Villegas Delarosa despite a lack of threatening behavior. Defendants further breached this duty by negligently or recklessly ?ring nine rounds at Ramiro James Villegas Delarosa, with ?ve striking him, including one in the forehead and one in the groin. 83. Decedent was a loving and caring son and his loss has and will continue to cause great and severe damages to his parents, the Plaintiffs in this action, all in an amount according to proof at the time of trial. 84. As a further direct result of the acts, omissions, negligence conduct and/or reckless disregard for the safety of decedent, Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiffs have incurred funeral and burial expenses in an amount according to proof at the time of trial. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE PER SE (Plaintiffs against Defendants City of Bakersfield, Aaron Stringer, and Does 25 through 50) 85. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs of this complaint, as though fully set forth herein. 18 - COMPLAINT GERAGOS GERAGOS. AFC HISTORIC ENGINE Co. No. 28 644 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET Los ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90017-341 1 86. California Government Code section 27491.2 was a law implemented by the State of California to protect corpses from unnecessary and harmful tampering by those persons other than coroners. Decedent and Plaintiffs were of the class of persons intended to be protected by this law. 87. conduct their affairs in accordance with California Government Code section 27491.2. Defendants and each of them therefore owed Decedent and Plaintiffs a duty to Defendants and each of them breached ?one or more of the duties established by California Government Code section 27491.2 when Defendant Stringer played with Decedent?s feet, manipulated Decedent?s head and jaw,-and generally tampered with the wounds sustained by Decedent which lead to his death. Such conduct constitutes negligence per se. 88. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff suffered significant general and special damages in an amount to be determined at trial. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BODY (Plaintiffs against Defendants City of Bakers?eld, Aaron Stringer, and Does 25 through 50) 89. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs of this complaint, as though fully set forth herein. 90. Defendants owed Plaintiffs a duty to exercise reasonable and proper care when handling the remains of Plaintiffs? son. 91. was malicious and intentional. Defendants' conduct demonstrates an entire want of care or Defendants? conduct, including but not limited to the conduct described herein, attention to duty and great indifference to the remains, property, and property rights of others. Defendants? conduct is outrageous and goes beyond all bounds of decency in a civilized society. 92. Defendants? conduct has directly and proximately caused and continues to cause economic and non-economic damages to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have and will continue to suffer extreme mental anguish, distress, and suffering. Plaintiffs have and will also suffer economic damages. 19 .. COMPLAINT HISTORIC ENGINE Co No. 28 644 SOUTH HGUEROA STREET Los ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90017-341 1 GERAGOS 8 GERAGOS, APC \Dm?JQUl-war?I 25 26 27 28 93. Defendants c0u1d foresee that their wrongful acts and omissions would damage the Plaintiffs in the manner set forth above. 94. Defendants undertook the aforesaid illegal acts intentionally or with conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiffs, and did so with fraud, oppression and/or malice. This despicable conduct subjected Plaintiffs to cruel and unjust hardship so as to justify an award of punitive damages in an amount suf?cient to deter such wrongful conduct in the future. Therefore, Plaintiffs are also entitled to punitive damages against Defendants in an amount to be determined at trial. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs prays for judgment as follows: 1. 2. 3. DATED: June 2, 2015 For general damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial; For special damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial; For punitive and exemplary damages against the individual defendants for the First and Third Causes of Action; For costs of suit; For reasonable attorneys? fees and costs as provided by statute; and For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. GERAGOS GERAGOS, APC . By. . GEMGOS BE J. MEISELAS RIDA HJORT Attorneys for Plaintiffs -20- COMPLAINT GERAGOS Ed GERAGOS, APC ESTO RIC ENGJNE Co. No. 28 644 SOUTH STREET L05 ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-341 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs LETICIA DELAROSA, an individual, and RAMIRO M. VILLEGAS, an individual, hereby demand a jury trial. DATED: June 2, 2015 J. BEN J. MEISELAS RIDA HJORT Attorneys for Plaintiffs 21 COMPLAINT