'" 00

""

1 MATTHEW PAPPAS (SBN: 171860) CHARLES SCHURTER (SBN: 174261)

2 22762 Aspan Street, Suite 202-107 Lake Forest, CA 92630

3 Phone: (949) 382-1485 4 Facsimile: (949) 242-2605

5 LEE H. DURST (SBN: 69704)

6 220 Newport Ctr. Dr., Suite 11285 7 NewpOlt Beach, CA 92660

Phone: (949) 400-5068 8

9

10

11

l2

l3

Facsimile: (949) 242-2096

Attorneys for Plaintiff, DORIAN BROOKS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

--:::1 --

'/} H ~ ~ "" NO

"" '" o ~ is --l < ....:I

1 Claims are within the supplemental jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.c. 1367. 2 2. Venue is proper in tIllS Judicial District because this is where the injmy 3 occurred and where the defendants are employed. ) ,

4 mTRODUCTORYSTATEMENT

" 5 3. Tills lawsuit arises out of Defendants' imposition of summary punishmetfF r1

6 and use of excessive force. It also arises out of the Defendants' decision to treat similarlp

7 situated disabled and/or African American individuals differently when engaging in illegal

8 raids and attacks under color of an invalid law.

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

STATUTORY PROVISIONS 4. Title 42 U.S.C. 1983, the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (SEC. 1983), provides

that "[e]very person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or TerritOlY or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to

the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress." 5. Title 42 U.S.C. 1981 (SEC. 1981) provides that, "[a]ll persons within the

jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in evelY State and TerritOlY to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all

laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of

21 every kind, and to no other."

22 6. Cal. Civil Code 54( c), the California Disabled Persons Act (CDPA), 23 proillbits laws, rules, policies, procedures, and actions by state, county, and city governments

24 that facially or through disparate impact discriminate against qualified disabled individuals.

25 7. Cal. Civil Code 51(), part of the Jesse Uruuh Civil Rights Act (UNRUH), 26 prohibits laws, rules, policies, procedures, and actions by state, county, and city governments

27 that facially or through disparate impact discliminate against qualified disabled individuals.

28

COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS 2

'" ~

'" '" < p.. ;;6 ""'7 ~d

~ ('.} ~:.t:l: ~t; "' 0 I%l (.) ""'

'" "' 0 is:

~ ,..;;

1 8. Code 52(a) .,r,nfHl or incites a denial, 2 or makes any discIimination or distinction f'.U1Trn with ... may . and prosecute . . a

12 civil action for "

13 10. Article 1, (a) in-part provides, "[a] may not 14 deprived of life, or property without process of law or protection

15 the laws;"

16 11. City Charter art. 2, 210 provides, "[n]o ordinance upon its the same been introduced,

emergency measures as provided Chatter ... No by the

Council shall before of thirty the time

passage, except ... emergency "

12. Beach City (LBCC), art. 2, 211 "[ t ]he City Council by vote of its emergency for the

public peace, health to take time

shall contain a section in which emergency IS

set forth and ..... VA.U ... ''-' A separate roll on the question of emergency shall

money may be passed as emergency ordinances."

1 V.LLJ-U'.U'> all

2 marijuana dispensaries, patient COlleCTIVI:S with more than (3) patients, and 3 cannabis cultivation the City Long Beach.

4

5 Plaintiff DORlAN BROOKS (BROOKS) is a 6 America who resides in Los County, California.

of the United States

suffers from physical and

7 mental ,",V.L.L'-""" .LVL'" that a major activity 8 Gov't Code 12926 and 12926.1. BROOKS is 9 Defendant CITY LONG (CITY) is a municipal corporation

operating as a Charter under sec. 7

Defendants DAVID STROHMAN (STROHMAN), (KIRK), KALID (ABUHADW AN), FRANCISCO

MARTIN RON (RON), DONALD '-'.L~",J 14 DO:NrENIC PENNINO (PENNINO), JERRY GIBBS (GIBBS), TIMOTHY 15 LONG (Ln~G), DA VID DEBRABANDER (DEBRABANDER); ALBERTO 16 JAMES are

17 individuals employed as police '-'.L.L,L ... ..,. by the s police department.

18 Defendant McDO)JNELL is, and all times mentioned this Complaint 19 was, of Long Police Department a of

McDON1\lELL was responsible

training, and hiring persons

specifically including .J,J..,J..'-'.L"u.UJ.

administration of LBPD

within the LBPD, including peace officers and

VALENZUELA, DEBRABANDER, and LONG. Plaintiff is

informed and believes and based upon such information and alleges at all

defendant was for

maintaining and implementing the policies the use of force, including, but not

limited proper and detainment As McDONNELL is one

1 persons responsible for ,"uatu",-.L S damages. Defendant McDONNELL is sued in both

2 individual capacity.

3 18. Plaintiff is and and based upon such

4 alleges that

5 VASQUEZ, aU relevant Defendants STROHMAN, KIRK, ABUHADWAN,

PENNINO, GIBBS,

6 LONG, and McDONNELL were employees LBPD.

7 19. Plaintiff is 1"+'~r'TY\ and and upon such

8 alleges that Defendants STROHMAN, KIRK, ABUHADWAN, VASQUEZ, RON, 1vIAUK, 9 and LONG (pOLICE

10 DEFENDANTS) acted in concert with one another, to an 11 Plaintiff of protected by the state and federal law

(J) Plaintiff is informed and and upon such information < ~ 'r, ~ ~ alleges Defendants ABUHADW AN, RON, PENNINO, and il< N

~r-"" ;:;:: :;::. \0

~ 8 ~ 14 OFFICERS) were the who, on June 19, assaulted battered ~~';"' F ~o ~ ~ ~ 15 BROOKS exceSSive and are officers in photographs included as "'0."; 0;;:0 '" 01 f-

'" < p. '" "" 00 -.: " "" N :S;2~

~8~ ~:;;:';"

1 As an award of damages under and California law against each

2 individual is justified. 3 27. Defendants are entitled to UUJ.u.J. ... 'u. immunity for . conduct as set

4 III Complaint.

Plaintiff or substantially complied Claim (Cal. Code 900, et seq.) requirements submitting to Defendant on July 20

5

6

7

8 on official claim (CLAIM). CLAIM includes a stamp 9 date it was received by CITY. true and correct copy of the

10

11

12 DENIAL). CLAIM

14

On February 7, sent a

CLAIM was assigned number 13-0064 by A

included with this Complaint as =,,-,,-_

No of insufficiency Cal.

15 delivered, or otherwise served by CITY during first 20-days

16 specified in Gov't Code 911.6.

(CLAIM

910.8 was the 45-day period

17 31. No of insufficiency under CaL Gov't Code 910.8 was 18 delivered, or otherwise served by CITY during

19

20 uresen.tea by

Defendants timely notice of the nature of Plaintiff s claims so that they could 21

22

23

See Connelly v. County

V. Santa Clara County

Gov't Code 911 of Education, Ca1.App.3d 702, 7

24 (1990); 25 claims brought nn,n", .. Title of the Code are not

26 to the requirements the Cal. Gov't Claim Act. Javor v. Taggart, 120 Cal.Rptr,2d 174,

1 (2002); Williams v. Horvath, 16 (1976). 28

1

2

LBMC CHAPTER 5.89

On or around March 201 the Council

3 Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) Chap. 5.87 to regulate medical cannabis collectives. 4 October 4, 2011, the Second District California Court of Appeal struck

5 down just the permit and permn: provisions of and the 6 vast majority of Chap. 5.87's regulatory provisions, including but not limited to provisions 7 of operationa1 location, and manner of

8 easily modified to remain valid. Pack v. Superior

9 199 Cal. 4th 1070 (rev. grant 1118/20 rev. dismissed 8/2212012) (2011). The 10 ~V~~VLA, prior to remittitur that on 11 14,2012.

12 February

art.

20 the City Council enacted, as

13 legislation under 211, Long Municipal Code medical cannabis dispensaries, collectives, and cultivation

3 LBMC 5.89 setting

particularity the emergency circumstances as required by LBCC art. 211 was . as a matter oflaw. Accordingly, LBMC Chap. 5.89 was enacted in contravention LBCC

0& 211 and is void.

"emergency" cited in LBMC Chap. 5.89 was insufficient both factually

and legally under LBCC art. II, 211 applicable '-/"',LLLV decisional San Christina Inv. Co. v. City County olSan Francisco, 762, 384 (1914); Francisco Fire F'ighters Local 798 v. City and County olSan 23 Cal. Rptr.3d 364

was in contravention of void.

40. LBMC Chap. 5.89 targets patients prescribed medical manJuana by a

Califomia physician are disabled

Califomia law and treats those patients operating together as a dispensary or collective

differently than comparable uses in contravention of CDPA UNRUH.

'" :

"" '" ~ A.;

i:!: ~ := f-<

"" < 0 1:'1 '-I

~ '" 0

~ : ....1

1 J....I'-'J""'"~ Chap. discriminatOlY in violation of the and section 5 and 2 IS

3

4 suffers for

5 which his licensed California doctor prescribed him AU...,'-U,""ou manJuana. Prior to incident

6 on 19,20 BROOKS not been rrA(,i"Ari for or convicted of a crime.

7 42. Pursuant to California ill 12 joined a medical 8 cannabis patient collective (COLLECTIVE) located 1 Atlantic ill Beach, 9 Cal. Health & Code 11362.775. Starting in May, 2012, BROOKS

10 work as a patient

11 43. ensure safety of and authorized caregivers the only

12 who were members COLLECTIVE - COLLECTIVE

13 tied to a series

14 in numerous prior wanantless raids collectives located in

15 during raids, removed and destroyed and

16 CAMERAS not only to the but

17 (SECOKDARY DVR SYSTEM). 18 on June 2012, POLICE

19 down a raid

20

21 45. approximately 1: 16 the AS SAUL TING OFFICERS, with guns

22 approached Plaintiff and ordered him with

23 the officers' commands, BROOKS laid on ground. Without provocation or any resistance

24 BROOKS, one of the OFFICERS walked-on BROOKS' stepping

25 his weight. Another one of the

26 OFFICERS then pulled BROOKS' arm and applied weight using full force his body

27

28

BROOKS' back. were placed on BROOKS.

t/} ~ H

'" ~ C,-

IJVJlllt\.Al the camera out to the other

surveillance camera was positioned near

was

8 the room, one of the POLICE

9 violently striking the camera.

,1.' .. /'-,""," DEFENDANTS a large metal pole

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

one

was

the officer Q"~''''~ '">'" the camera with metal pole, it to the

officers responded,

The handcuffs

was positioned below

cried out as

up you dumb

had been placed on

"

along with dust and

LU,HLlLF, materials hit

were very when

one of the ASSAULTING OFFICERS "nvu,,,v loosen the handcuffs, the

" .. ~~~r< the handcuffs

BROOKS was

51. While ill

who had been

one of the

and placed in a chair

wai ting area

and working at

OFFICERS to patient

in handcuffs.

the patient

COLLECTIVE rlnr ... "Ie. the raid, were

and placed in chairs. Two (2) of the individuals who had been area were

(2) detainees were While .:>J.LL,UL,c;, in the chair

(1) of the two LtU,l,.lllV detainees

volunteers and ,A .. I,,,,,, .. ,, who had been one of the OFFICERS came to the patient

about BROOKS and the two (2) Latino detainees. The several V'u"UJ.J:h' about the Latino detainee.

After approximately (30) minutes,

1 BROOKS

2 upper

3 loosen

4 asked

5 removed.

6

7 attention.

8 medical

9

10 SYSTEM.

to lose

pain following

handcuffs,

his

BROOKS

The officers

During

However,

from

At no

in his was also from severe neck and

assault by officers. When asked an to please

refused. However, when one of the Caucasian detainees

loosened, handcuffs for Caucasian were

told several officers he was pam and medical

to assist BROOKS and to provide with any

RAID, located, and the

footage of the attack on BROOKS was captured on the off-site

The photographs included as ==.:......;;....;;;, are true and

footage raid.

during the raid did Plaintiff to resist

14 Plaintiff simply remained passively limp entire time avoid provoking Defendants

unprovoked and excessive use 15 because he feared for physical safety the face of

After incident, 11'\1'11'1' learned that addition to

the RANKING OFFICERS were also at the scene the incident.

informed and believes and upon such information and belief alleges

were a

the violations alleged in

directly to these violations.

24 II

25 II

26 //

1/

28 II

prevent OFFICERS

Complaint and declined to do or contributed

'"

1

2

3

4

5

[42 U.S.C. Racial Discrimination in Violation of Equal Protection Clause, Fourteenth Amendment, and U.S.C. 1981;

Officer Defendants Only]

62. Plaintiff incorporates by reference allegations of Paragraphs 1

6 of this Complaint, as set here

55

7 complained of Plaintiff had the clearly established

8 constitutional right to be racial discrimination in law A .... YA."ATY\

9 and to the protection of the

10 Plaintiff, as an African American a member of a protected class, and thus

11 also clearly

12 free from racially motivated beatings,

Any reasonable police

14 the of the complained of conduct as

provision of

searches, and the filing of

or should known

charges.

were clearly established at that time.

66. Plaintiffs race was a motivating in the decisions to use

1 to be

at

force

16 and with charges. conduct was

unde11aken with purpose depriving Plaintiff the equal protection benefits of the

law, Hv'''-v>J and AUAUU .. UJLU"",,, the and violation of the

Fourteenth Amendment and 1981. Defendants '"'.'.AI..,"!',""'" m conduct described this Complaint

maliciously, in bad

rights.

and reckless disregard Plaintiff BROOKS' federally protected

68. or the were

movmg behind injuries and the DEFENDANTS acted in concert mutually with each

acts or omissions of the POLICE as

described herein intentionally deprived Plaintiff of constitutional and statutOlY and

caused other "',,",,'.un}..,""'"

1 aU during by POLICE

2 OFFICER DEFENDANTS were acting to municipal/county policy,

in their U,"'t"'VL.h> pertaining 3 decision, ordinance, regulation, widespread

4 to Plaintiff.

usage, or

U.S.C. Deliberately Indifferent Policies, Procedures, Customs, Training, Supervision in Violation of Fourth, and Fourteenth

Amendments, City and Police Chief Defendants Only]

74. A Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations of 1 through

55 of Complaint, as forth here

10

11

12 '" ~

""' ~ ~ 13

..: .". ~ M 3:G;~

14 wl'Ch' ~8~ ~~';' ~ :'0

15 < t-< pi Vl'" ~?2~ ~p.. ..... 0.< 0, 16 ~N~

~~~ ;x.,NO 17 '" '" ~ ~ :S: >-l ..: 18 ....1

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

77.

STROHMAN

on the scene

OFFICERS.

Defendants

officers on

suffered.

McDONNELL

use

and/or

RON given

aware,

19,2012.

to participate on

likely to be

and believes that Defendants

and the RANKING ,"~VU'-+".H""" were the supervisors

was subjected to by ASSAULTING STROHMAN and PENNINO RANKING OFFICER

prevent, discipline or

20 or thereafter and are therefore

is further infonned and

1 4 failed to adequately

constitutional

control the subordinate

Plaintiff for the injuries he

alleges that Defendants

discipline or in any

previous complaints .... u"'h .... "h

",u"',..,.., ...... Defendant

ABUHADWAN

history of complaints, of

should not have allowed

and/or DOES 1 to 4 were

participate in the LBPD raid on

Defendants STROHMAN, and RON and

19, 2012, Defendants knew or should have known that were

to the excessive use of by Defendants.

J.J ..... ,,"'.... on the custom and condoning, tolerating, and

ULHJH'" and a failure to adequately discipline subordinate

1 who committed constitutional violations, as the DEFENDANTS,

2 McDONNELL, STROHMAN, the RANKING OFFICERS, and 1 to 4 are liable for

3 constitutional violations committed by POLICE OFFICER for the 4 suffered ............. LL.LL ... as forth h""""011'>

5 80. aforementioned acts the individual defendants McDONNELL and

6 STROHlV1AN, RANKING OFFICERS, and DOES 1 to inclusive, were willful, wanton,

7

8 these Defendants is justified. 9

10

11

12

13 of

14

15 Cal.

16

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

[Violation of the Disabled Civ. 54; Against All Defendants]

81. "'11"1'1-11-1- incorporates by r""1-~>1'''''n the alH~garr011s of Paragraphs 1 through 55 Complaint, as set forth in fulL

82. within scope CDPA,

Code 54; Cal. Code 12926 1. Accordingly, Ulll:LU.LL IS a the ofnPT .... "n protected by the CDPA, which uu."..." failing

1 provide proper and reasonable training to officers, including but limited to

2 POLICE

3 who are mentally or emotionally disabled

4 with people with disabilities who do not

the manner which to respond to

by failing to respond

any serious threat to or

5 Defendants' and as alleged herein, were III violation of the

6 Civ. and The

7 Defendants concerning discrimination against persons, as Plaintiff, on basis

8 disability. Indeed, the was intended prevent the of injury be

damage set forth

9

10

IS a the

85. Because of Defendants'

by the

11 damages including, but not limited to, medical expenses, attorneys' mental

costs, costs and pecuruary

86. Plaintiff also suffered

emotional mental

presently

continues to physical'

shock,

15 discomfort and anxiety, as a

anguish, humiliation, embarrassment,

of Defendants' acts.

18

19

[Violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code 51(t); Against All Defendants]

allegations Paragraphs 1 through 55

this Complaint, as if herein

88. Plaintiff from a disability within the meaning and scope Gov't

& 1 1. Accordingly, Plaintiff a member protected by section 51(t) Jesse Civil

to discriminate against an individual with a disability.

Generally, the Jesse Umuh Civil

applicable

Civil Code incorporates protections for provided

the class

only

persons

for a

business

section 51(t) of the U.S 101, et

California Supreme COUli held that the rights nrr.TAf"TA" under 51()

'"

1

2

3

4

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

[Violation of Cal. Civ. Code 52.1; Against AU Defendants]

94. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 55

5 of this Complaint, as if set forth here in full.

6 95. The Defendants' actions complained of herein, including the use of excessive

7 force in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, racial discrimination in

8 violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, racial discrimination in violation of art.

9 I, 7 of the California Constitution, failure to afford Plaintiff due process, and inflicting cruel 10 and unusual punishment in violation of state and federal constitutional provisions, denied,

11 aided in the denial of and/or incited others to deny rights of and/or to discriminate against

Vl 12 Plaintiff in contravention of Cal. Civ. Code 52.1.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

100. Plaintiff

unlawful touching

Plaintiff.

10I. a

and each of them,

a claim of battery

which was in-part

and legal result of

has suffered U

1 earnings and "'ULLLllJlF, capacity, loss of enjoyment of and future medical "u~"',,,.u,>v

suffering, emotional

2 distress,

3

4

5

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

[Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; Against Defendants in their Individual Capacities]

6 107. LUllJlULL incorporates by

"'-'V,LU!J.UULU, as if set forth here in full.

of Paragraphs 1 through

7 of

8

9

10 each

11 and nervous 12

13 each

15 losses not

1

18 done

actions or omissions circumstances constituted

a direct acts and omissions,

herein, Plaintiff unen:u severe shock to mental

a further direct and legal acts and omissions,

Plaintiff has suffered without limitation, pam and

U.lLJ.VU'LU distress, medical expenses, auc)rnt':v costs of suit, other

Plaintiff is informed and

were willful, malicious,

conscious disregard of

and exemplary Y...u.U"i")"''''

T"'I",rAr,n alleges that Defendants'

oppressive and despicable and/or were

and safety. Accordingly,

Plaintiff requests the following

23

24

The award of compensatory

in an amount according to

For all medical expenses;

For general damages;

against all Defendants,

award of punitive and damages against all

capacities in an amount be -n .. n"", ... at trial;

ill

'" -

EXHIBIT 1 (P. 1)

EXHIBIT 1 (P. 2)

Return to: CITY CLERK 333 West Ocean Blvd. Long Beach, CA 90802

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES AGAINST CITY OF LONG BEACH

1. Claims for death, injury to person or to personal property must be filed not later than 6 months after date of occurrence. (Gov. Code Sec. 911.2)

2. Claims for damages to real propelty must be filed not later than 1 year after the occurrence. (Gov. Code Sec. 911.2)

3. Read entire claim for before filing. 4 . Fill in each line completely. 5. Attach separate sheets, if necessary, to give full details.

DORIAN BROOKS 811211983 N/A Name o/Claimant (type or print) Date of Birth Driver License #

C/O MATTHEW PAPPAS, 22641 LAKE FOREST DR. , #B5-107, LAKE FOREST 92630 (SEE BELOW Home Address of Claimant City , State, Zip Code Telephone #

22641 LAKE FOREST DRIVE, #B5-107 LAKE FOREST, CA 92630 949-371-7881 Business Address of Claimant City, State , Zip Code Telephone #

949-371-7881 Give name and address to which notlces or communications are to be sent regarding this clarrn:

RESERVE FOR FILING STAMP FILENO.

w en

f"' ()

LAW OFFICES OF 1vIATTHEW PAPPAS AND DAVID WELCH, 22641 LAKE FOREST DRIVE, #B5-107, LAKE FOREST, CA 92630

Date of incident: Exact location of occurrence: JUNE 19 2012

Time of occun'ence: 1:30 P.M. 301 ATLANTIC AVE., LONG BEACH CALIFORNIA

(Month) (Day) (Year) AM

License munber and make ofvehicle(s) involved (if applicable):

What happened? ILLEGAL LBPD RAID UNDER COLOR OF INVALID CITY LAW (l.E. LBMC 5.89). EXCESSIVE FORCE BY POLlCE OFFICERS. VIDEO AVAILABLE AT HTTP://WWW.YOUTUBE.COMIWATCH?v=AG942y1Cq64. OFFICERS CAUSED PHYSICAL INTIJRY TO MR. BROOKS DURING THE RAID, VIOLATED HIS CIVIL RIGHTS, VIOLATED THE CA. DISABLED PERSONS ACT (CIV. CODE S. 54(C)), AND ENGAGED IN CONDUCT THAT VIOLATED VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS.

Were Police at scene? rx Yes 0 No

Why is City of Long Beach responsible? Give name of public employee involved, ifknown. SEE ABOVE.

Give total amotmt of claim. (Include estimated amount of any prospective injury or damage): rN EXCESS OF $1,000,000.00 (EST.)

How was amount of claim computed? (Be specific. List doctor bill, wage rate, repair estimates, etc.) : PLEASE ATTACH ESTIMATES.

BILLS HA VB NOT BEEN RECEIVED YET FOR MEDICAL TREATMENT AND MENTAL COUNSELrNG.

List names and addresses of witnesses; doctors and hospitals; insurance companies: DALLAS ALEXANDER, LANDON ALEXANDER, EDWARD CRIA, JEAt'mINE CARTER, KATHERINE ALDRICH, UNKNOWN OTHERS (INVESTIGATION CONTINUING).

Return ORIGINAL to City Clerk I(eep a Capv for vaur File CLAIMS MUST BE FILED with CITY CLERK (CaL Gov. Code Sec. 915a) (Claim may be mailed to Clerk) NOTE: Presentation of a false claim is a felony (Cal. Pen. Code Sec. 72)

I certify und ty of perjury that the 0regoing is true and correct.

(Signed)_--l--~~~~~=~===:7;1===~"""S::7.-=-=i='l..=:-:--_ IF M1NOR (UNDER 18) PARENT OR GUARDIAN MUST SIGN FORM

Signature of Claimant or person filing on his behalf-giving relationship to Claimant. LAKE FOREST, CA 7-5-2012

CI1Y DATE

ATTOR NE Y

ROBERT E. SHANNON City Attorney

MlCHAELJ. MAIS Assistant Cify AUortlr:y

) . CHARLES PARKrN AssistaJll City AttoYJIcy

February 7, 2013

Law Offices of Matthew papp~s and David Welch 22641 Lake Forest Drive , #85-107 Lake Forest, CA 92630

RE:

Dear Sirs:

Claimant: Clajm No.: Claim Date:

Dorian Brooks F13-0064 17/5/2012

This letter is to inform ~ou that your claim, which you filed with the City of Long Beach, is rejected as of Febryary 7,2013. Based on our investigation of your claim, we have determined that neither the City nor any of its employees are liable to you for any alleged damages. Your claim~was rejected on that basis, and no further action will be taken on this matter.

STA: E LAW REQUIRES THAT YOU BE GIVEN THE FOLLOWING WARNING

I Subject to certain exc~ptions. you have only six (6) months from the date that this

notice was personally deliver~d or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code 945.6.

I This time limitation applies only to causes of action for which Government Code

900 - 915.4 required you t9 present a claim. Other Causes of action, including those arising under federal law, maYt have different time limitations.

I I CGM : tis I

L IApPS\ClylaWJZ\WPDOCSI0007IP020100371 967. DOC

I

Sincerely,

ROBERT E. SHA~NON, City At~;Jl

By c _~0'~ )1r~ CHRISTOPHER G. MORA ,- .~" City Investigator

333 West Ocean Boulevard, Eleventh Floor, Long Beach, California 908024664 (562) 570-2200 F~x (562) 436-1579 .', ..... .. .. . ., .' .; ; .; ; ... :: . . Eighth Floor (562) 570-2245 Fax (562) 5702220

'.

A tHie C. Lnl!ime Monle H. A1bclut

C. Geoff"" AI/red Gory J. Allckr.;ol!

RicJ"rrd F. AnthoHY Kendra L Carne!,

Christina L. Cheed Chlr/es M. Cnle

Barbara f. IYfcTigVi:: Darry M. Me"ers

Howard O. Russel! 14frmi L. Shin

Lilldn Trtlng A'(1Y R Webbrr

Theodore 8. Zinger