You are on page 1of 17
oo Loc'Abbeka Saromben BOOT D.S41 1 n 2 3 4 1s 16 " 18 19 20 21 2 23 4 25 GERAGOS & GERAGOS “emus Gr) 230305 MARK J.GERAGOS SBN 108325 BENI-MEISELAS SBN 277412 ZACKV.MULIAT SBN 304531 ‘Attorneys for PiaintifTs ORIGINAL ‘SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA. ‘THE ESTATE OF JOHN DEMING, JR; and JOHN DEMING, SR. and LINDA. STASI, individually, and as successors-in- interest and wrongful death heirs to DECEDENT JOHN DEMING, IR., Plaintiffs, vs. CITY OF PLEASANTON; PLEASANTON POLICE DEPARTMENT; DANIEL KUNKEL, an individual and officer; ERIC GORA, an individual and officer, MARK SHELDON, an individual and officer; TYLER PAULSEN, an individual and officer; BRADLEY PALMQUIST, an, individual and officer, OFFICER BENNETT, an individual and offiecr; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. CASE NO. COMPLAINT FOR: 1. VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS 42 US.C. §1983 VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS 42 US.C. $1983 — CLAIMS OF LINDA STASI 3. VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS MONELL CLAIM 4, VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIP $. VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIP (MONPLL) 6. VIOLATION of CIVIL CODE 52.1 7. WRONGFUL DEATH Unlimited Civil Jurisdiction ‘DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL. ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES n 2 B “4 15, 6 "7 19 20 21 2 4 25 26 n 2% Plaintiffs The Estate of John Deming, and Jr, John Deming, Sr. and Linda Stasi, in their individual capacities and as successors-in-interest and wrongful death heirs to John Deming, Jr allege as follows; FACTUAL BACKGROUND 1, On July 5, 2015, an unarmed 19-year-old John Deming Jr, known to friends and family as “Bubba,” was shot multiple times and murdered by an emotionally unstable Pleasanton Police Officer named Daniel Kunkel. 2. Officer Kunkel was previously relieved of his duties with the Antioch Police smotional distress,” which Department after fling a lawsuit against that Department for \was still pending when he made the transfer tothe Pleasanton Police Department in March 2014, The Pleasanton PD was on notice when it hired Officer Kunkel, and gave him a gun, that he was suing his previous police department for emotional and mental health problems 3. Based on his emotional Antioch Police Department), and pre-existing emotional stress and trauma after a career in juries (and pending distress lawsuit against the the military as a tank machi patrolling the streets and he especially should not have been handling a weapon in the City of -gunner in Irag, Officer Kunkel should not have been Pleasanton, or anywhere 4. On the evening of July 5, 2015, the unarmed John Deming, Jr. posed no threat {o Officer Kunkel or any Pleasanton Police Officer. Toxicology reports show that Job J. ‘vas not on any drugs, medication, nor had he consumed alcohol. John Jr. was a peaceful teenager, aspiring musician, and a leader at his local church group. 5. On the day of the incident, John Jr. was grappling with emotional isues as he vas set f0 go off into the workforce and potentially leave his musie career behind. On the day of the incident, John Jr. was driving from his mother's home in San Jose to his father's hhome in Oakdale where he would begin work, Pleasanton was in the middle of his joumey, and on the Fourth of July it had fireworks and a fair at the Alameda County Fairgrounds, ‘Which i right next tothe used car dealership where John Jr. had stopped. 6. John J. stated to officers he was unarmed and came and in peace. Despite COMPLI iT FOR DAMAGES oc SET 1 GrnacoséeGenncos,are 10 n 2 1B 15 16 ra 18, 19 2» 21 2 23 4 25 26 a 2% this fact, the Pleasanton Police Department, which lacked any training in de-escalation protocols and dealing with individuals with mental health issues, decided to shoot at the ‘unarmed John Jr. with tasers and beanbag guns, and release a K9 to chase John Jr, out of the used car dealership where he was present. 7. Before escalating force, Sergeant Fric Gora can be heard on the police issued Scorpion body-cam stating that John Jr. was “fifty-one fifty.” which is police officer and ‘medical code for someone having a mental health crisis. 8. Rather than call for mental health intervention, the Defendant Officers gave the ‘commands and followed through on shooting at John Jr. with beanbag guns, tasers, and by releasing a K9, 9. John Jr. was caused to flee from the premises as he was being chased by a dangerous K9 that was trying to sever his leg. 10. John Jr. was flushed out the premises where a lone-officer, Officer Kunkel, was waiting with his gun drawn. According to police statements, John Jr. attempted to flee ‘and run away as he was being chased. John Jr. posed no threat to any officers, and was running for his life as he was stunned by the sudden use of beanbag guns, tasers, and a K9. John Jr. was fearful for his life. 11, Despite the Scorpion Body-Cam being issued to all Pleasanton Police Officers, being required to be used in situations such as these, and being operational on other officers during the incident, Officer Kunkel claimed to Internal Affairs that he was wearing a ‘bodycam, but that the bodycam was not tuned on because he felt the bodyeam distracted hhim and that he never uses the bodyeam in an operational setting. 12, This statement by Orficer Kunkel i the third-time Pleasanton has changed the story about the existence or use of Officer Kunkel's bodyeam—frt telling the public that there was no bodycam, then telling the public there was & bodyeam but that Officer Kunkel never received the bodycam, and finally Officer Kunkel’s most recent excuse that he was ‘wearing the bodyeam but forgot to tum it on, 13. Officer Kunkel's convenient and suspicious failure to activate his bodycam, as COMPLAI FOR DAMAGES Genacos’Genacos, re required by Department protocol, i all the more alarming given that none of the forensic and scientific evidence of the murder of John Jr. match with Officer Kunkel’s version of events. ‘Two autopsies — one performed by the Alameda Coroner and another by world-renowned independent forensic pathotogist Cyril Wecht — confirm that that there was no gunpowder residue or “tattooing,” on John Jr.'s body, meaning the shots fired by Officer Kunkel were at ‘ considerable distance and not at close range as Officer Kunkel alleges. 14, Further, there is no offensive bruising on John Jr.'s hands or body which directly contradicts Officer Kunkel’s version of events that John Jr, was the aggressor. 15, Further, other than looki by tipping over his own feet, Officer Kunkel had no injuries consistent with him being the “pale,” and apparently having ankle injuries caused victim of anything other than his own attempts to cover-up his murder. 16. ‘The facts will show that Officer Kunkel was mentally unstable, panicked when he saw John Jr. fleeing from the K9 that was chasing him, and unreasonably shot and killed John Jr. without justification or privilege. 17. From the 911 audio-tape and the bodycam footage that was working on the day of the incident, we know that the entire incident, from the confrontation of John Jr. by Pleasanton Officers to his murder, took place in just two minutes, Defendants recognized John Jr. was unarmed and potentially “fifty-one-fifly,” according to Sgt. Gora, approximately 30 seconds before his death. 18. Following the murder of John Ir, the Pleasanton Police ran a trace of John Jr.'s car which would have revealed he was the son of a highly regarded and award-wining, Reserve Oakdale Police Officer, John Deming, Sr. 19, Regardless, Pleasanton Police did not call John Sr. and instead went to John Jr's mother’s home (Plaintiff Linda Stasi) in San Jose, Califor 20, The Pleasanton Police Department did not show Linda a warrant and proceeded to hold her at gunpoint on the ground as she pled for her life. Linda was handcuffed as the Pleasanton Police raided her home and took computers and notebooks belonging to John Jr. ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES i es GynacosEGraacos, are 21, After more than a 2-hour raid, Pleasanton Police finally told Linda for te first- time that her son was dead. Thereafter, the Pleasanton Police issued warrants for John Jr.'s Facebook and Instagram accounts, and attempted a detention of John Jr's elderly srandparent, in an attempt to defame John Jr. in his death by trying to dig up potentially incriminating information about him unrelated to the incident. 22, Further, a Pleasanton Police Sergeant had a phone call with John Sr. and told hhim there was bodyeam footage of the incident and there would be justice for him and his family. This was right before Pleasanton Police Public Relations Officers began holding press conferences to spread false statements about John Jr. 23, In short, the conduct by the Pleasanton PD is a template in how not to function as a Police Department: From (1) the decision to hire Officer Kunkel atthe same time he was suing Antioch Police Department for his emotional distress, (2) to the decision to escalate a jolent interaction with an unarmed teenager who Pleasanton Police Sergeant his recognized was having a mental health issue, (3) to Officer Kunkel not prodi bbodycam footage for perplexing and still unbelievable reasons, (4) to providing contradicting, narratives about what took place and sticking with a murky and bizarre vietim-blaming narrative at odds with the forensic evidence by two forensic pathologists, and (5) to holding the vietim’s mother at gunpoint and detaining her while not disclosing her son had died ~ all ‘cumulatively demonstrate thatthe cluster of incompetence, malice, and culture of cover-up at the Pleasanton Police Department directly lead to the death of John Jr. PARTIES 24, Plaintiff John Deming, Sr. is the surviving parent, heir, and suecessor-in- interest to Decedent John Deming, Jr. 25, Plaintiff Linda Stasi is the surviving parent, heir, and suecessor-in-interest 10 Devedent John Deming, Jr. 26. At all times herein mentioned, the City of Pleasanton was @ govemmental ‘entity organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, 27. At all times herein mentioned, the Pleasanton Police Department was @ ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGE sere GexacoseGnacos, are 10 un 2 1B 4 15 16 7 18 19 2» a4 23 4 25 26 2 28 governmental entity organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, 28. Defendant Daniel Kunkel, at all relevant times, was a police officer employed by the City of Pleasanton acting under color of authority. 29, Defendant Erie Gora, at all relevant times, was a police officer employed by the City of Pleasanton acting under color of authority 30. Defendant Mark Sheldon, at all relevant times, was a police officer employed by the City of Pleasanton acting under color of authority. 31. Defendant Tyler Paulsen, at all relevant times, was a police officer employed by the City of Pleasanton acting under color of authority. 32, Defendant Bradley Palmquist, at all relevant times, was a police officer employed by the City of Pleasanton acting under color of authority. 33. Defendant Bennett, at all relevant times, was a police officer employed by the City of Pleasanton acting under color of authority. 34. Each of the above-mentioned officers, named herein, all collectively participated in the use of forve, the unlawful decision to escalate force, and/or the execution and murder of John Jr. 35. ‘The true names and capacities, whether individual, department, associate ot otherwise sued herein as DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs atthe time of filing this Complaint, who therefore sue said Defendants by such fictitious names. 36. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that at all times ‘mentioned herein, Defendants DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, were, and now are, the agents, employees, servants, officers, and/or safety officers employed or retained by any or all Defendants. 37. Plaintifts will ask leave of court to amend this Complaint to show the true names and capacities of such Defendants when the same are ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that each of the Defendants designated herein, including DOES 1 through 50, are responsible in some manner for the happenings and ‘occurrences hereinafter alleged, and that such conduct was a substantial factor in causing the ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Genscose Gemrcos sre rene injuries to Plaintiffs complained herein. JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND NOTICE 38. This Court has jurisdiction over the entire action by virtue of the fact that this is civil action wherein the matter in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of the Court. 39. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 410.10, because all parties are domiciled within the State of Ci 40, Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 395(a), venue is proper because ia, Plaintiffs injury occurred within the jurisdiction of this Court in the County of Alameda, California, 41. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this court by Section 1983, of Title 42, United States Code, Concurrent jurisdiction was granted to this court under Williams vs, Horvath (1976) 16 Cal.3d 834, 837. Also, this Court has jurisdiction to award damages pursuant to Article VI Section 10 of the California Constitution 42, Pursuant to Government Code Section 910, Plaintifs and each of them submitted a Government Tort Claim on August 26, 2015 to the appropriate City Officials. ‘There was no response. By operation of law, the Government Tort Claim is deemed rejected ‘on October 10, 2015. The instant action is timely brought within 6 months or 180 days from the rejection by operation of law. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation of Civil Rights 42 U.S.C. §1983) (Plaintiffs Against Defendants Kunkel, Gora, Sheldon, Paulson, Palmquist, Bennett, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive) 43. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein 44. Defendants were, at all relevant times, law enforcement officers with the City of Pleasanton Police Department who were acting under color of state law, 45, Plaintifts bring this claim for relief in their capacities as the suecessors-in- Saunt ue Grnacose Guna 10 un R 1B 4 1s 16 7 18 19 2» a4 2 23 24 25 7 28 interest and personal representatives ofthe decedent John Deming J. 46. 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, 47. 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 Firs, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, by subjecting the decedent to excessive force when they shot and killed him. The First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments are made applicable to the States pursuant to 42 USC. §1985, 48, The wrongful acts alleged herein above by defendant police officers were the cause of decedent's death, 49. Each of the Defendant Officers participated in an unlawful use of force, Violation of policy, and unlawful conduct causing the deprivation of decedent John Jr.'s life 50, Specifically, all Defendant Oicers were members of the police team that was present at the used car dealership on July 5, 2015. All Defendant Officers participated in conduct constituting uniwaful force, when confronting an unarmed teenager identified as, having mental health issues who stated he “came in peace.” 51. Defendant Kunkel shot and killed the unarmed John Jr. at a distance without justification or privilege. Defendant Kunkel violated policy and the United States Constitution by unreasonably using lethal force on John Jr. 52. Defendant Gora led the operation within the premises, recognized and stated that he believed the unarmed John Jr. was having a mental health crisis, but ordered the escalation of foree in the form of tasers, beanbags, and K9. Sgt. Gora violated policy, the United States Constitution, and acted unreasonably without any justification or privilege, when causing the escalation of the violence and force, and giving unlawful commands thereto, on the unarmed teenager leading to his death, 53. Defendant Sheldon engaged in the unlawful use of force on John Jr. including, ‘but not limited to, unlawfully utilizing, commanding, encouraging, and releasing the K9 on ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES John Jr. Defendants Palmquist, Bennett, and Paulsen each engaged in the unlawful use of ing but not limited to, the unlawful use of beanbag guns and/or force including on John inch jon, without tasers on John Jr, cach in violation of policy, the United States Const privilege or excuse. 54, Asa proximate result ofthe foregoing wrongful acts of defendants, and each of them, the decedent sustained general damages, including pain and suffering, and a loss ofthe enjoyment of life and other hedonic damages, in an amount in accordance with proof. 55, Asa proximate result of the foregoing wrongful acts of defendants, and each of them, Plaintiffs have lost the society and comtort of their child 56, 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 57. As further damage, Plaintiffs have and will incur attomeys* fees and pursuant 10.42 US.C. § 1988 are entitled to recover costs and fees in pursuing rights for a violation of A2USC. § 1983. ‘SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation of Civil Rights 42 U.S.C. §1983) (Plaintiff Linda Stasi against City of Pleasanton, Pleasanton Police Department, and DOE Defendant Officers) 58. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein, 59. Atal times material to this Complaint, Defendants were acting under color of the law in violating Plaintiff's constitutional rights as herein alleged under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. ‘The First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments are made applicable to the Slates pursuant to 42 U.S.C. $1983. 660. Plaintiét has a constitutional right tbe free from the use of excessive force by ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Grascose-Gunacos, sre 10 n 2 B 15 16 " 18, 19 2 2 2 24 25 26 2 2% Jaw enforcement officers. Defendant caused injuries with the use of force against Plaintiff's person which was unnecessary, excessive or unreasonable, and thereby deprived Plaintiff of | rights, privileges, and immunities secured to her by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United State. 61. Plaintiff has a constitutional right to be free from an unreasonable seizure of her person, made without probable cause. Defendants deprived Plaintiff of rights, privileges, and immunities secured to her by the Fourth and/ or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States by, inter alia, subjecting Plaintiff to an unlawful search and seizure of her person, causing her to be handcuffed and unlawfully detained at gunpoint. 62, Due to the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has suffered ‘general damages and special damages, all ina sum to be proved at trial. 63. Due to the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has been required to incur attorneys’ fees and will continue to incur attorneys’ fees, all to Plaintif’s ‘damage in a sum to be proved at trial and recoverable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988, 64, The individual defendants acted with a conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights, ‘conferred upon her by Section 1983, Title 42 of the United States Code, the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments tothe United States Constitution and California Civil Code Section 3333, by intentionally causing her injury and unlawfully detaining her at gunpoint. Such conduct constitutes malice, oppression andior fraud under California Civil Code Section 3294, ing Plaintiff to punitive damages against the individual Defendants in an amount suitable to punish and set an example of said Defendants. ‘THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation of Civil Rights- Monel! Claim) (Plaintiffs against Defendants City of Pleasanton and Pleasanton Police Department) 65. Plaintifsreallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained inthe preceding paragraphs ofthis complaint, as though fully set forth herein as the successors-in- 66, Plaintiffs bring this claim for relief in their capac interest and personal representatives of the decedent John Deming Jr. =10- ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES anes GrmcoseGemacos, re 67. Defendants knowingly, with gross negligence, and in deliberate indifference to and custom of the Constitutional rights of citizens, maintain and permit an official poli permitting the occurrence of the types of wrongs set forth hereinabove and hereafter. 68. Specifically, the City of Pleasanton permits its officers to unlawfully tum off their bodycam and/or delete bodycam evidence. Further, the City of Pleasanton maintains a policy of approving lateral transfers of officers into its Department, such as Office Kunkel, who are not qualified and not emotionally stable for the requirements and demands of the Job. 69. Further, the City of Pleasanton maintains an unlawful policy of obtaining improper warrants, and engaging in improper searches and seizures of individuals, such as Decedent John Jr. to reverse engineer inflammatory accusations to attempt to justify the Department's unlawful conduct, 70. These systematic and systemic unlawful policies within the Department are evidenced within the intemal affairs OIS investigation report, the conduct by the Chief of Police and City Public Relations Officials. The illegal and unlawful polices herein are approved at the highest levels within the Pleasanton Police Department 71. Further, these policies and customs include, but are not limited to, the deliberately indifferent training of its law enforcement officers in the use of excessive force, the express and/or tacit encouragement of excessive force, the ratification of police misconduct, the failure to conduct adequate unbiased investigations of police misconduct such that future violations do not occur. 72. 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 Pleasanton is liable forall ofthe injuries sustained by Decedent and Plaintiffs as set forth above. 73. Asa 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

You might also like