15 09-28 FILED City's RJN ISO Demurrer - Redacted

1
2
3
4
FILED
Vincent P. Hurley #111215

Ryan M. Thompson #292281
LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT P. HURLEY
A Professional Corporation
28 Seascape Village
Aptos, California 95003
Telephone: (831) 661-4800
Facsimile: (831) 661-4804
SEP 2 B 2015
TERESA A. RISI
CLERKOF THE SUP~RIOR COURT
t CJ IMUINGS
DEPUTY
Attorneys for Defendants

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA and LUKE E. POWELL
7
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MONTEREY
10
)
11
JENNIFER DA SILVA,
12
Plaintiff,
)
)
13
vs.
)
)
14
15
16
17
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA;
LUKE E. POWELL, individually and in
his official capacity as aPolice Officer
for the CITY OF CARMEL-BY.,THESEA; COUNTY OFMONTEREY;
MONTEREY COUNTY SHERIFF'S
OFFICE, andDOES 1 through 50,
inclusive,
18
Defendants.
Case No. M132929
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DEFENDANTS CITY OF CARMEL-BYTHE-SEA AND LUKE E. POWELL'S

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN
SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS'
DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT OF
PLAINTIFF JENNIFER DA SILVA
Date: October 30, 2015
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Dept.: 14
Date action filed: August 7, 2015
19
20
21
Pursuant to California Evidence Code sections 452(c), (d)(l), and (h) and 453, and
22
California Rule of Court 3.1306(c), Defendants CITY-OF-CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA and
23
SERGEANT LUKE E. POWELL request that this Court take judicial notice of the following
24
items:
26
Plaintiff's Complaint for Damages against City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, et al., bearing a
27
filing date stamp by the above-captioned Court of August 7, 2015, a true and correct copy of
28
which is attached as Exhibit A.

Defs' RJN ISO Demurrt!r
Case No. Ml32929
1
2
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE NO.2:

Judge Robert O'Farrell's Order After Submission, signed and filed November 19,2014,
granting Petitioner's Petition for Order Relieving Petitioner from the Provisions of Cal. Gov't.
Code section 945.4, a true nad correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit B.
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE NO. 3:
6
7
8
9
Defendants request judicial notice ofthe time limits in the following statutes of
limitations for purposes of calculating the applicable periods and deadlines:
Cal. Gov't Code section 946.6(t): In the event the court makes an order relieving the
petitioner from the provisions of Cal. Gov. Code section 945.4, suit on the cause of action to
10
which the claim relates must be filed with the court within 30 days thereafter. A true and correc1
11
copy of Cal. Gov't Code section 946.6(f) is attached as Exhibit C.
12
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE NO. 4:
13
Plaintiffs May 5, 2015 "Substitution of Attorney" form filed with the Court, wherein
14
Plaintifftransitioned from her former attorney, Stephen F. Wagner, to her current attorney,
15
Andrew B. Kreeft, a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit D.
16
17
Dated: September]'{ 2015

LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT P. HURLEY
A Professional Corporation
18
19
20
By: -
21
RYAN M. THOMPSON
Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA and LUKE E. POWELL
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Defs' RJN ISO Demurrer
Case No. Ml32929
EXHIBIT A
3
4
ANDREW B. KREEFT (SBN 126673)

LAURA L. FRANKLIN (SBN 282642)
BOHNEN, ROSENTHAL & KREEFT
787 Munras Avenue, Suite 200
P.O. Box 1111
Monterey, CA 93942-1 111
Telephone:
(831) 649-5551
Facsimile:
(831) 649-0272
CA~! '1P1;4AO ~f!Nl' c:;~~f.~J3~NCE
Attorneys for Plaintiff

JENNIFER DASILVA
CATE:_: :('.
PLACE: Courtroom ,: d 2nd Fl

1200 AguaJito R
"= '
oor
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFO~.A d. Monterey CA 93940
COUNTY OF MONTEREY- UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
8
9
CaseNo:M
JENNIFER DA SILVA,
10
11
12
13
14
15
~).:) - ~:~.. ;i~~-.
TIME: 9:00AM
1. 3 2 9 2 9
Plaintiff,
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
vs.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA; LUKE E.
POWELL, individually and in his official
capacity as a Police Officer for the CITY OF
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA; COUNTY OF
MONTEREY; MONTEREY COUNTY
SHERIFF'S OFFICE, and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive,
16
[JURY TRIAL DEMANDED]
Defendants.
17
18
19
Plaintiff JENNIFER DASILVA, formerly known as Jennifer Little ( .. Plaintiff") hereby
alleges as follows:
20
21
INTRODUCI'ION
This case arises from a non-violent, verbal dispute between two parents regarding their
22
eleven year-old daughter's cell phone use that was unnecessarily escalated into an incident of
23
excessive force and unlawful detaimnent, whereby Plaintiff suffered serious and permanent
24
bodily injury and other damages.
25
26
PAJlTIES
1.
Plaintiff is a resident of Cannel, California in the County of Monterey and a
27
citizen of the United States of America. At the time of the incidents complained ofherein,
28
Plaintiff was a 37-year-old female with no prior criminal record.

DaSilva v. Cily of Cannel-by-the-Sea, eta/.
2.
Defendant CITY OF CARMEL-BY-TilE-SEA is a local entity in the State of
California within the meaning ofPart 3 (beginning with 900) of Division 3.6 of Title I of the
Government Code. The claims herein are brought against CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA by
and through the acts and omissions of its Police Sergeant, Defendant LUKE E. POWELL.
3.
Defendant LUKE E. POWELL ("SERGEANT POWELL") was a Police Sergeant
with the Carmel Police Department employed by CITY OF CARMEL BY-THE-SEA at all .
relevant times mentioned herein. At all times material to the incidents giving rise to Plaintiff's
claims in this matter, SERGEANT POWELL was acting within the course and scope of his
employment for CITY OF CARMEL BY-THE-SEA. The claims herein are brought against
10
SERGEANT POWELL in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as a Police Sergeant
11
for the CITY OF CARMEL BY-THE-SEA.
12
4.
Defendant COUNTY OF MONTEREY is a public enb.ty, duly organized and
13
existing under the laws of the State of California. Under its authority, Defendant COUNTY OF
14
MONTEREY operates and manages the Monterey C.ounty Jail and is, and was at all relevant
15
times mentioned herein, responsible for the actions and/or inactions and the policies, procedures,
16
practices, and customs of the MONTEREY COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE. COUNTY OF
17
MONTEREY employs 50 or more persons.
18
5.
Defendant MONTEREY COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE (the "SHERIFF'S
19
OFFICE") is a public entity, duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of California.
20
Sheriff Scott Miller was the: duly elected Sheriff of COUNTY OF MONTEREY at all times
21
material to the incidents giving rise to Plaintitrs claims in this matter. The SHERIFF'S OFFICE
22
is responsible for the day-to-day operatlonsofMonterey County Jail, including promulgating
23
policies and procedures fur the intake and detention of inmates and all other procedures relating
24
to the operation of the facilities.
25
6.
The claims herein are brought against Defendants COUNTY OF MONTEREY
26
and the SHERIFF'S OFFICE, in part, by and through the acts and omissions ofDOE 1, a female
27
employee of COUNTY OF MONTEREY who was working at Monterey County Jail during
28
Plaintiff's intake and incarceration complained of herein. At all times mentioned herem, DOE I
2
DaSilva v. City ofCarmel-by-the-Sea. et al.
was the agent ofboth COUNTY OF MONTEREY and the SHERIFF'S OFFICE and was acting
within the course and scope of this agency.
7.
Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is
informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of these fictitiously named defendants is
resp<>nsible in soll:'e manner for the occurrences alleged in this complaint. Plaintiff will seek
leave of the Court to amend her complaint to state the names and capacities ofDOES I through
SO once ascertained.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8.
10
This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, the Fourth and Fourteenth
11
Amendments to the United. States Constitution, and by the laws and Constitution of the State of
12
California.
9.
13
14
The amount in controversy, excluding interest and costs, exceeds the minimum
jurisdictional limit ofthis Court.

10.
15
Venue is proper in this Court because all of the events alleged herein occurred
16
within the County ofMonterey; Plaintiff is and was at all times mentioned herein a resident of the
17
County of Monterey; all defendants conduct operations within the County of Monterey; and all
18
witnesses either work or live within.the County of Monterey.
FACTS
19
11 .
20
Plaintiff resides in CarmelJ California with her daughter, Jenna, V\oho was eleven
21
years old on the night in question. Jenna's father, Daniel Balint ("Balint''), is Plaintiff's ex-
22
husband and resides in a separate residence in Carmel, California, approximately one mile away
23
from Plaintiff's residence at the time in question. Plaintiff and Balint had been divorced for
24
approximately six years when the events complained of herem took place and they generally
25
enjoyed an amicable relationship. The shared custody agreement between PlaintJff and Balint
26
provided that Plaintiff had custody of Jerma on weekdays, while Balint had custody of Jenna on
27
weekends.
28
Ill
3
DaSilva 11.
Cit}~ of Cannel-by-the-Sea,
et al.
12.
On the evening of August 7, 2013, a Wednesday, Plaintiff and her daughter Jenna
had a disagreement at their house regarding Jenna's online activities via a cellular telephone that
had recently been given to Jenna by Balint without Plaintiff's consent. Plaintiff was concerned
about certain safety implications of her eleven~year-old daughter having unsupervised internet
access at her fingertips at all times, and threatened to take the phone away from Jenna. Being
upset with her mother for threatening to take her cell phone away, Jenna called her father and
asked him to come pick her up.
13.
Even though it was approximately 9:00p.m. on a weeknight, during which time
Plainttffundisputedly had legal custody of Jenna, Balint drove to Plaintiff's houset picked up
10
Jenna, drove her to the house of a nearby family member (Jenna's Aunt) and left her there for the
11
night Plaintiff protested Balint's taking of Jenna, hut did not physically try to stop him.
12
14.
Plaintiff subsequently called 911 and asked who she should contact to report her
13
daughter being taken by Balint in contradiction with their custody agreement. The 911 operator
14
referred Plaintiff to the SHERIFF'S OFFICE. Rather than involve the SHERIFF'S OFFICE,
15
Plaintiff decided to try to work things out directly with Balint.
16
15.
Balint had not yet returned to his apartment when Plaintiff arrived. In accordance
17
with their usual custom and practice, Plaintiff entered Balint's apartment through his front door,
18
which he regularly kept unlocked, and waited for Balint to return from dropping Jenna off at her
19
nearby aunt's house.
20
16.
Upon Balint's return, he and Plaintiff began to argue regarding the cell phone that
21
Balint had given Jenna and the safety issues relating to Jenna's internet access through this phone.
22
The argwnent, while non-violent, became heated. At one point, Plaintiff threatened to report
23
Balint's taking of Jenna in contradiction with their custody agreement. Baltnt responded by
24
saying he would call the police himself to report that Plaintiff was trespassing on his property. In
25
her frustration, Plaintiff encouraged Balint to call the police and then walked outside of Balint' s
26
apartment to wait for the police by her vehicle.
27
28
17.
Shortly thereafter, at approximately 10:00 p.m., two officers from the Cannel
Police Department arrived at Balint's residence. Sergeant Brian Pon ("Sergeant Pon'1 began to
4
DaSilva v, City ofCarmel-&y-the-Sea, et l.
question Plaintiff, while SERGEANT POWELL began questioning Balint (Sergeant Pon and
SERGEANT POWELL hereinafter collectively referred to as the "officers''). Both Plaintiff and
Balint confirmed that their dispute had been verbal only, and that there was no prior history of
domestic violence or physical altercations of any sort between them.
18.
After questioning Balint, SERGEANT POWELL returned to Plaintif( who was in
the process of giving her statement to Sergeant Pon. While Sergeant Pon had been civil in his
questioning of Plaintiff, SERGEANT POWELL was immediately confrontational and aggressive.
Plaintiff maintained a calm, respectful tone as SERGEANT POWELL repeatedly demanded to
know why Plaintiff was uso mad" or "so angry" despite Plaintiff's repeated response that she was
10
not angry. Plaintiff attempted to explain to SERGEANT POWELL that she was at Balint's
11
residence because Balint had inappropriately taken her daughter in contradiction with their
12
custody agreement, and that the whole ordeal related to a disagreement about their daughter's cell
13
phone access. Plaintiff became disconcerted as SERGEANT POWELL repeatedly interrupted
14
her and accused her of lying.
15
19.
As SERGEANT POWELL continued his aggressive questioning, Plaintiff grew
16
increasingly agitated and expressed her confusion as to why she was suddenly being interrogated
17
in this manner. Plaintiff finally stated, ''0~ I need to have my attorney here. I'm sorry. rm not
18
talking" and began to back away from the officers. At this point, SERGEANT POWELL
19
advanced towards Plaintiff, telling her to calm down and physically blocking her from moving
20
further down the driveway. Feeling threatened, Plaintiff walked toWards Balmt's apartment, in
21
the hopes that Balint could help defuse the situation. SERGEANT POWELL advanced closer to
22
Plaintiff, telling her that she could not enter Balint's apartment. As Plaintiffturned back from
23
Balint's apartment, SERGEANT POWELL grabbed her arm and applied an arm bar takedown to
24
force Plaintiff to the ground. This takedown caused Plain,tiff's head to hit the asphalt gro1md with
25
such force as to give Plaintiff a black eye and open a large laceration on her forehead, which
26
would eventually require eight stitches, a CT scan, and other treatment. In the course of this
27
takedown by SERGEANT POWELL Plaintiff further suffered additional wounds to the left side
28
of her face and her anns, as well as permanent damage to her right thumb. Once on the gro1md,
5
DaSilva v. City ofCannel~b_!J-the-Sea, eta/.
Plaintiff was placed in handcuffs.

2
20.
Plaintiff began to scream as she immediately felt the blood dripping from her head
wound down her face, into her mouth, and onto her clothes. As Plaintiff began to scream,
SERGEANT POWELL stated, "Do you hke it? Stay right there. Stand up straight."
21.
Balint, having emerged from his apartment upon hearing Plaintiff's screaming,
retrieved a towel from his residence and held it on Plaintiff's head to help control the bleeding
until Monterey Fire Department and Carmel Regional Fire Ambulance arrived on the scene.
8
9
22.
Plaintiff was transported to Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula
(CHOMP) by Carmel Fire Ambulance for treatment, where she was attended to by the
10
~ergency Room physician.
11
top), which were now covered in blood from the wound on her head. She had not been allowed to
12
retrieve her jacket out of her car. The Emergency Room medical staff, having seen Plaintiff
13
arrive at CHOMP late at night, in the custody of a police officer, and covered in her own blood,
14
repeatedly accused Plaintiff of being on drugs. One nurse in particular kept shining a flashlight in
15
Plaintiff's eyes, as she asserted: "You're on drugs. Just tell me what you're on. Crank? Pep?
16
Pot?" While Plaintiff had consumed two glasses of wine earlier that evening, she had not
17
ingested any illegal substances, prescription drugs, or even over-the-counter medications at the
18
time in question.
19
23.
Plaintiff was dressed in workout clothes (yoga pants and a tank
Plaintiff was subsequently transported by SERGEANT POWELL to the Carmel
20
Police Department for processing. Eventually, Plaintiff was transported by Sergeant Pon to
21
Monterey County Jail. However, the staff at Monterey County Jail would not accept Plaintiff
22
because her injuries required further treatment. Accordingly, Sergeant Pon transported Plaintiff
23
to Natividad Medical Center, where Plaintiff received eight stitches to close the laceration on her
24
forehead; multiple CT scans of her face, head/brain, neck, and spine; at least one x-ray of her
25
hand; and other treatment.
26
27
28
24.
Upon being released from Natividad Medical Center, Plaintiff was transported
back to Monterey County Jal1 and placed in a group holding cell where various other inmates
came and went during Plaintiff's detention. After several hours, when Plaintiff's head wound
6
DaSilva v. City of Carmel-by--the-Sea, eJ al.
began to bleed through the gauze, a jail nurse changed the dressing on Plaintiff's. wound and
warned Plaintiff that she should .use extra caution to avoid the wound getting contaminated
because the holding cell was very dirty.
25.
Several hours later, the gauze covering Plaintiffs head wound had once again
become saturated with blood. At this time, another inmate in the holding cell with Plaintiff
pushed the button to call the deputy for assistance. DOE 1, a female deputy, appeared in response
to the inmate's calL While DOE 1 was present at the holding cell attending to the other inmate,
Plaintiff mentioned to DOE 1 that she was in need of new gauze for her head wound. Appearing
annoyed, DOE 1 replied to Plaintiff'$ request by saying, ''you wouldn't need more gauze if you
10
would stop picking at it." Vlhen Plaintiffreplied that she had not been picking at the wound,
11
DOE 1 turned to Plaintiff, smiled, and said in a sarcastic tone, "I think you're a danger to
12
yourself." Plaintiff immediately replied to DOE 1, "You know that's not true.,. At which time,
13
DOE 1 physically removed Plaintiff from the group holdmg cell and escorted her to a solitary
14
cell.
15
26.
Plaintiff was informed that she was being placed on a psychiatnc hold pursuant to
16
Cal. Welf. and lnst Code section 5150 ("'5150 hold") for being a danger to herself. Plaintiff was
17
stripped of all of her clothing in view of multiple county employees and at least one male inmate
18
and then given a rectangular heavyweight garment, approximately the size of a bath. towel, t~
19
wrap around herself.
20
27.
For several hours, Plaintiff was held in a very hot solitary holding cell with cement
21
walls. In place of a toilet, there was a hole in the floor with vis1ble feces from previous inmates.
22
The cell contained one glass window, which faced the glass window of the adjacent holding cell.
23
When Plaintiff attempted to look out her window to get the guard's attention, she was subjected
24
to obscene sexual gestures from the male inmate in the adjacent cell, who had previously
25
witnessed Plaintiff being stripped naked by the guards.
26
28.
While sound was limited through the solid cement walls of the solitary cell~
27
Plaintiff could hear some conversation by the jail employees when she pressed her face close to
28
the cell's glass window. Plaintiff was ultimately able to get the attention of one jail employee by
7
DaSilva v. City of CAnnei-bv-the-Sea, et al.
making a praying symbol with her hands. Plaintiff subsequently observed this same employee
2
through the cell window as she reviewed Plaintiff.s records with a look of disapproval on her face
and then stated to another employee, "There are no priors." Approximately one hour later,
Plaintiff was allowed to put her blood-covered clothes back on and return to the group holdmg
cell.
29.
In total, Plaintiff was detained for approximately 18 hours at the Monterey County
Jail. Plaintiff estimates that approximately three of such hours were spent m the solitary cell on
the alleged 5 l 50 hold Plaintiff was not allowed to contact her fanrily at any time during her
detention. Plaintiff "'as ultimately released on her own accord without bail.
30.
10
Plaintiff had been booked into Monterey County Jail on two charges: Obstructing
11
an Officer, Penal Code 148(a)(l), and Public Intoxication, Penal Code 647(f). No testing of
12
any sort was ever conducted by any officers, medical staff, or any employee of COUNTY OF
13
MONTEREY or CITY OF CARMElrBY-THE-SEA in connection with the charge of Public
14
Intoxication. All such charges against Plaint.lff were di.stnissed on March 18, 2014.
31.
15
As a direct, proxima~ and legal result of the acts, omissions, policies, patterns,
16
practices, and/or customs of defendants alleged herein, Plaintiff has suffered damages including,
17
but not limited to: bodily injury, loss of income and employment, substantial physical and
18
emotional pain and suffering, shock and injury to her nervous system, humiliation, acute anxiety,
19
emotional and physical distress and fear; and Plaintiff continues to suffer from post-traumatic
20
stress and anxiety relating to the events complained of herein.

32.
21
As a further direct, proximate, and legal result ofthe injuries aUeged herein,
22
Plaintiff has incurred, and may continue to incur medical expenses in an amount according to
23
proof
24
33.
Pursuant to Section 910 of the Government Code, Plaintiff filed a ..CLAIM FOR
25
DAMAGES AGAINST THE CITY OF CARMEL~BY-THE-SEA'' on March 19, 2014 (the
26
"Claim"). The Claim was not presented within the time prescribed by Government Code section
27
911.2 because ofthe following facts:
28
a) Plaintiff had a pending and related criminal matter before the court in
8
DaSilva v. City of Carmel-by.the-Sea, et a!.
Monterey County (Case No. CRMS314352A).

2
3
b) Plaintiff was a defendant in a criminal case that arose out of the same operative
facts as set forth in the Claim filed against the CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA.
c) The charges against Plaintiff were dismissed on March 18,2014 following the
presentation of evidence and arguments by counsel in a Motion to Suppress Evidence (PC
1538.5) before the Ron. Samuel Lavorato, Jr.

d) Plaintiff genuinely believed that, as a prerequisite to her filing of a claim
7
8
9
against CITY OF CARMELMBY-THE-SEA, the criminal matter needed to reach final disposition.
34.
After denials by CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA of both the Claim and
10
Plaintiff's subsequent Application for Leave to File Late Claim, Plaintiff filed a Petition for Order
11
Relieving Petitioner from Provisions ofGov't Code 945.4 (the "Petition') in Monterey County
12
Superior Court.
13
35.
On November 19,2014, the Hon. Robert O'Farrell granted the Petition, holding
14
that Plaintiff acted under a reasonable mistake when she waited to file her Claim until the day
15
after the related criminal matter reached its final disposition.
16
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
17
42 U.S.C. 1983--VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS

(Against Defendants LUKE E. POWELL and
18
19
20
21
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA)
36.
Plaintiff repeats and rep(eads each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1
through 35, and by this reference incorporates the same herein as though fully set forth.
37.
Defendant CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA is and was responsible for
22
overseeing the implementation and promulgation of official policy for its police force, Carmel
23
Police Department, which included SERGEANT POWELL at all times herein mentioned. . CITY
24
OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA was deliberately indifferent to the need for adequate training and
25
supervision for its police officers, the failure of which caused constitutional violations upon the
26
citizenry in general, including Plaintiff in particular.
27
28
38.
Defendant SERGEANT POWELL was acting under the color oflaw, as an
authori7ed agent of Defendant CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, while detaining,

9
DaSilva v. C-ity of Cannel-by-the-Sea, et al.
interrogating. and arresting Plaintiff, in furtherance of his duties.
39.
Defendant SERGEANT POWELL violated Plaintifrs civil rights by brutalizing
and inflicting severe injury upon Plaintiff under the color o{law with force that was grossly
chsproportionate in relation to the need for action under the circumstances, and by subjecting
Plaintiff to an 1Ilegal, improper, and unlawful seizure of her person without probable cause,
privilege, or consent Furthermore, SERGEANT POWELL's actions in aggressively
interrogating Plaintiff needlessly and intentionally escalated an otherwise non-violent, verbal
domesticdispute into a physical altercation that facilitated Plaintiff's physical injury and arrest
40.
The constitutional deprivation of Plaintiff's rights was also caused by a deliberate
10
indifference demonstrated by CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA and perpetrated upon citizens,
11
such as Plaintiff. Such failures mclude not having officers appropriately trained in the proper
12
procedures for handling non-violent domestic disputes and improper use of force training and
13
supervision that allows and permits the detention of persons without just cause and through
14
unreasonably injurious methods.
15
41.
The above described actions of Defendant SERGEANT POWELL and the pohcies
16
and practices of Defendants CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA deprived Plaintiffofher rights
17
and privileges under the Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
18
42.
As a direct, proximate, and legal result of the acts, omissions, policies, pattems,
19
practices, and/or customs of defendants alleged herein, Plaintiff has suffered damages including,
20
but not limited to: bodily injury, loss of income and employment substantial physical and
21
emotional pain and suffering, shock and injury to her nervou.-; system, humiliatio~ acute anxiety,
22
emotional and physical distress and fear; and Plaintiff continues to suffer from post-traumatic
23
stress and an:xiecy relating to the events complained of herein.
24
43.
As a further direct, proximate, and legal result of the injuries alleged herein,
25
Plaintiff has incurred, and may continue to incur, substantial medical and other out-of pocket
26
expenses in an amount according to proof.
27
28
44.
As a further direct and proximate consequence ofthe acts of CITY OF CARMEL-
BY-THE-SEA by and through its employee, SERGEANT POWELL, Plainttffwas transported to

10
COMPLAINT I-OR DAMAGES
DaSilva v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, et al.
Monterey County I ail, where she was placed on an unreasonable 5150 hold in solitary
2
confinenient, during which Plaintiff was subjected to humiliating and traumatic conditions,
including being stripped of all of her clothing in view ofmultiple county employees and at least
one male inmate.
45.
As such, Plaintiffrequests compensatory damages, reasonable attorneys~ fees and
costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988 and any such other and further relief as this Court deems just.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
FALSE IMPRISONMENT
10
11
12
CITY OF CARMEL--BY-THE-SEA)
46.
Plaintiff repeats and repleads each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1
through 45, and by this reference incorporates the same herein as though fully set forth.
47.
Defendant CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA through its employee,
13
SERGEANT POWELL, intentionally confined Plaintiff, without consent or lawful privilege, for
14
an unreasonable period of time, without probable cause, in deprivation of her rights. Jn his
15
response to a call regarding a non-violent, verbal dispute between two parents, SERGEANT
16
POWELL interrogated and detained Plamtiffwithout probable cause, needlessly escalating a non-
17
violent dispute into a confrontational detention of Plaintiff, whereby Plaintiff was prohibited from
18
leaving and subsequently suffered severe bodily injury and other damages.
19
48.
Defendant CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA is vicanously liable for the tortious
20
acts of its employee, SERGEANT POWELL, that were committed within the scope and
21
furtheranceofhis employment.
22
49.
As a direct and prox1mate consequence of the acts of CITY OF CARMEL-BY~
23
THE-SEA by and through its employee, SERGEANT POWELL, Plaintiff has suffered damages
24
including, but not limited to: bodily injury, loss of income and employment. substantial physical
25
and emotional pam and suffering, shock and injury to her nervous system, humihation, acute
26
anxiety, emotional and phystcal distress and fear; and Plaintiff continues to suffer from post-
27
traumatic stress and anxiety relating to the events complained of herein.
28
50.
As a ftnther direct, proximate, and legal result of the injuries alleged herein,
11
DaSilva v. City ofCarmel-by-the-Sea, et al.
2
3

51.
As a further direct and proximate consequence ofthe acts of CITY OF CARMEL-
BY-THE-SEA by and through its employee, SERGEANT POWELL, Plaintiffwas transported to
Monterey County Jail, where she was placed on an unreasonable 5150 hold in solitary
confmement, during which Plaintiff was subjected to humiliating and traumatic conditions,
including being stripped of all of her clothing in view ofmultiple county employees and at least
one male inmate.
52.
10
As such, Plaintiff requests compensatory damages, reasonable attorneys' fees
under CCP 1021.5, costs and any such other and further relief as this Court deems just.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
11
12
BAITERY
13

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-TilE-SEA)
14
15
16
53.
Plaintiff repeats and repleads each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1
through 52, and by this reference incorporates the sarne herein as though fully set forth.
54.
Defendant CITY OF CARMEL-BY~THE-SEA through its employ~
17
SERGEANT POWELL, intentionally caused bodily hann to Plaintiff through the use of
18
unreasonable force. SERGEANT POWELL's unnecessary ann bar takedown of Plaintiff caused
19
her head to hit the asphalt ground with such force as to give Plaintiff a black eye and open a large
20
laceration on her forehead, which would eventually require eight stitches. a CT scan, and other
21
treatment. In the comse of this takedown by SERGEANT POWELL Plamtiff further suffered
22
additional wounds to the ieft side of her face and her arms. as well as permanent damage to her
23
right thumb.
55.
Defendant CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA is vicariously liable for the tortious
:25
~6
furtherance ofhis employment.
27
~8
56,
As a direct and proximate consequence of the acts of CITY OF CARMEL-BY.
THE-SEA by and through its employee. SERGEANT POWELL. Plaintiff has suffered damages
12
DaSilva v. City ofCannel-by-the-Sea, et a/.
including, but not limited to: bodily inJury, loss of income and employment, substantial physical
and emotional pain and suffering, shock and injury to her nervous system, humiliation, acute
anxiety, emotional and physical distress and fear; and Plaintiff continues to suffer from post-
traumatic stress and anxiety relating to the events complained of herem.
57.
Plaintiffbas incurred, and may continue to incur, substantial medical and other out-ofpocket
8
9
58.
As a further direct and proximate consequence of the acts of CITY OF CARMEL-
BY-THE-SEA by and through its employe<; SERGEA...~.n POWELL, Plaintiffwas transported to
10
11
confmement, during which Plaintiff was subjected to humiliating and traumatic conditions,
12
including being stripped of all of her clothing in view of multiple county employees and at least
13
one male inmate.
14
59.
15
M such, Plaintiff requests compensatory damages, reasonable attorneys' fees
16
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
17
INTENTIONAL INFLICfiON OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE..SEA}
18
Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 59, and incorporates them by
19
60.
20
reference herein.
21
61.
.Defendant CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA through its employ~
22
SERGEANT POWELL, intentionally caused bodily and emotional harm to Plaintiff, and they
23
knew, or should have known, that emotional distress would likely occur as a result of their
24
conduct.
25
62.
The conduct of Defendant CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA through its
26
employee, SERGEANT POWELL, was outrageous; that is, as to go beyond all bounds of
27
decency, and to be regarded as odious and utterly intolerable in a ciVlllzed community.
28
63 .
Said intentional conduct was willful, malicious and in total disregard of Plaintiff's
13
1
2
rights.
64.
Defendant CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA is vicariously liable fur the tortious
furtherance ofhis employment
65.
As a direct and proximate consequence of the acts of CITY OF CARMEL-BY-
THE-SEA by and through its employee, SERGEANT POWELL, Plaintiff has suffered damages
including. but not limited to: bodily injury, loss of income and employment, substantial physical
and emotional pain and suffering, shock and injury to her nervous system, humiliation, acute
anxiety, emotional and physical distress and fear; and Plaintiff continues to suffer from post-
10
11
traumatic stress and anxiety relating to the events complained of herein.

66.
12
13
14
67.
As a further direct and proximate consequence of the acts of CITY OF CARMEL-
15
BY-THE-SEA by and through its employee, SERGEANT POWELL, Plaintiff was transported to
16
17
confinement, during which Plaintiff was subjected to humiliating and traumatic conditions,
18
including being stripped of all ofber clothing in view of multiple county employees and at least
19
one male inmate.
20
68.
As such, Plaintiff requests compensatory damages, reasonable attorneys fees
21
22
Additionally, Plaintiff requests punitive damages due to the malicious nature of the conduct.
23
FIFI'H CAUSE OF ACTION
24
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
(Against Defendants DOE 1, COUNTY OF MONTEREY,
And MONTEREY COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE)
25
26
69.
27
reference herein.
28
70.
Defendants COUNTY OF MONTEREY and the SHERIFF'S OFFICE through its

i4
COMPLAINT FOR DAM<\GES
DaSilva v. City ofCarmel-by-the..Sea, eta!.
employee, DOE 1, intentionally caused the institution of a legal action under Cal. Welf. and Inst.
2
Code 5150 and 5150.05 while Plaintiff was detained at Monterey County Jail, resUlting in
placement of Plaintiff on a psychiatric hold in solitary confinement. This psychiatric hold places
a person under detention fur up to three days without legal recourse or further hearings, save for
the discretion of medical staff.
71.
As part of this 5150 hold, Plaintiff was stripped of all ofher clothmg in view of
multiple county employees and at least one male inmate and then allowed only a bath towel sized
garment to cover herself. For several hours, Plaintiff was held in a very hot solitary holding cell
with cement walls. In place of a toilet, there was a hole in the floor with visible feces from
10
previous inmates. The cell contained one glass window, which faced the glass wmdow of the
11
adjacent holding cell. When Plaintiff attempted to look out her window to get the guard's
12
attention, she. was subjected to obscene sexual gestures from the male jzunate in the adjacent cell,
13
who had previously witnessed Plaintiffbeln.g stripped naked by the guards.
14
72.
Said intentional conduct was will:ful, malicious, oppressive, and in total disregatd
15
of Plaintiff's rights, safety, and welfare. No medical assessment was ever conducted for this 5150
16
hold. Upon review of Plaintiff's file by a different employee in the SHERIFF'S OFFICE, who
17
clearly saw that such a hold was unjustified, Plaintiff was released back to the group holding cell
18
and subsequently allowed to leave the Monterey County I ail.
19
73.
Defendants COUNTY OF MOI\'TEREY and the SHERIFF'S OFFICE are
20
vicariously liable for the tortious acts of their employee, DOE 1, that were committed within the
21
scope and furtherance of her employment.
22
74.
As a direct and proximate consequence of the acts of Defendants COUNTY OF
23
MONTEREY and the SHERIFF'S OFFICE through its employee, DOE l, Plaintiff sustained
24
severe emotional distress, humiliation, emotional pain and suffering. and Plaintiff continues to
25
suffer from post-traumatic stress ~d anxiety relating to this even4 which has led to Plaintiff's
26
loss of income and employment, and additional out-of-pocket expenses.
27
28
75.
under CCP 1021.5, costs, and any such other and :furthecreliefas this Court deems just.
15
DaSilva v. City a/Carmel-by-the-Sea, eta/.
Additionally, Plaintiff requests punitive damages due to the malicious nature of the conduct
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
INTENTIO NAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DlSTRESS

(Against Defend ants DOE I~ C O UNTY O F MO NTEREY,
And MONTEREY CO UNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE)
76.
reference herein.
r
77.
Defendant Defendants COUNTY OF MONTEREY and MONTEREY COUNTY
SHERIFF'S OF'FICE, by and through their employee, DOE 1, intentionally caused emotional
harm to Plaintiffby placing her on an unjustified and unreasonable 5150 hold~ and they knew, or
should have known, that emotional distress would likely occur as a result of their conduct.
10
11
78.
The conduct of Defendant COUNTY OF MONTEREY and MONTEREY
12
COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, by and through their employee, DOE 1 was outrageous; that is,
13
as to go beyond all bounds of decency, and to be regarded as odious and utterly intolerable in a
14
civilized community.
15
79.
As part
of this 5150 hold, Plaintiff was stripped of all of her clothing in view of
16
multiple county employees and at least one male inmate and then allowed only a bath towel sized
17
garment to cover herself. For several hours, Plaintiffwas held in a very hot solitary holding cell
18
with cement walls. In place of a toilet, there was a hole in the floor with visible fece$ from
19
previous inmates. The cell contained one glass window, which faced the glass window of the
20
adjacent holding cell. When Plaintiff attempted to look out her window to get the guards
21
attentio~
22
who had previously witnessed Plaintiffbeing stripped naked by the guards.
23
24
she was subjected to obscene sexual gestures from the male mmate in the adjacent cell,
80.
Said intentional conduct was willful, malicious, oppressive, and in total disregard
of Plaintiffs rights. safety. and welfare. No medical assessment was ever conducted for this 5150
25
hold. Upon review of Plaintiff's file by a different employee in the SHERIFF'S OFFICE, who
26
clearly saw that such a hold was unjustified, Plaintiff was released back to the group holding cell
21
and subsequently allowed to leave the Monterey County Jail.
28
81.
Defendants COUNTY OF MONTEREY and the SHERIFF'S OFFICE are

16
DaSilva v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, et al.
vicariously liable for the tortious acts of their employee, DOE 1, that were committed within the
2
scope and furtherance of her employment.

82.
As a direct and proximate consequence of the acts of Defendants COUNTY OF
MONTEREY and the SHERIFF'S OFFICE through its employee, DOE 1, Plaintiff sustained
severe emotional distress, humiliation, emotional pain and suffering, and Plaintiff continues to
suffer from post-traumatic stress and anxiety relating to this event. which has led to Plaintifrs
..
I
8
9
loss of income and employment, and additional out-of-pocket expenses .

83.
under CCP 1021.5, costs, and any such other and further relief as this Court deems just.
10
Additionally, the malicious nature of the conduct entitles Plaintiffto the recovery ofpunitive
11
damages.
12
84.
Defendants COUNTY OF MONTEREY and MONTEREY COUNTY
13
SHERIFF'S OFFICE are vicariously liable for the tortious acts of its employee, DOE 1, that were
14
committed within the scope and furtherance ofher employment.
15
85.
As a direct and proximate consequence of the acts of COUNTY OF MONTEREY
16
and MONTEREY COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, by and through their employee, DOE 1
17
Plaintiff was placed on an unreasonable 5150 hold in solitary confinement, dming which Plaintiff
18
was subjected to humiliating and traumatic conditions, including being stripped of all of her
19
clothing in view of multiple county employees and at least one male inmate.
20
86.
As a direct and proximate consequence of the acts of COUNTY OF MONTEREY
21
and MONTEREY COUN1Y SHERIFF'S OFFICE, by and through their employee, DOE I,
22
Plaintiff has suffered damages including, but not limited to: loss of income and employment,
23
substantial physical and emotional pain and suffering, shock and injury to her nervous system,
24
humiliation, a.Cute anxiety, emotional and physical distress and fear; and Plaintiff continues to
25
suffer from post-traumatic stress and anxiety relating to the events complained of herein.
26
27
28
87.
As such, Plaintiff requests compensatory damages. reasonable attorneys' fees
Additionally, the malicious nature ofthe conduct entitles Plaintiff to the recovery of punitive
17
COMP~FORDAMAGES
damages.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACfiON
NEGLIGENCE
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA)
4
5
88.
reference herein.
"'
. 89.
Defendants LUKE E. POWELL and CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, and
each of them, were negligent in perfonning their duties; and each failed, neglected, and/or refused
to properly and fully discharge their responsibilities by, among other things:
a. Improper compliance with policies, practices, and procedures in the questioning
10
and detention ofPlaintiff;
11
12
b. Allowing a culture to exist of imprOtfef or non-compliance with policies, praetices
13
and procedures in the questioning and detention of a citizen, including Plaintiff;
14
c. Improper and/or erroneous threat assessment in the questioning and detention of

Plaintiff;
15
d. Exercising an excessive and unreasonable level of force against Plaintiff for the
16
~~ces;and
17
e. Failure to use reasonable care in the hiring, training; and/or SUpervlsing of officers.
18
19
90.
As a direct and proximate consequence of the negligent acts of Defendants,
20
Plaintiff sustained severe emotional distress, humiliation, emotional pain and suffering, and
21
Plaintiff continues to suffer from post-traumatic stress and anxiety relating to this event, which
22
bas led to Plaintiff's loss of income and employment, and additional out-of-pocket expenses.
23
91.
Defendant CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA is vicariously liable for the tortious
24
25
furtherance of his employment.

92.
26
27
28
Ill
IS
DaSilva v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, et a/.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENCE
(Against Defendants DOE 1, COUNTY OF MONTEREY,
And MONTEREY COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE)
3
4
93.
reference herein..
94.
Defendants COUNTY OF MONTEREY and MONTEREY COUNTY
SHERlFF'S OFFICE, and each of them, were negligent in performing their duties; and each
failed, neglected, and/or refused to properly and fully drscharge their responsibilities by, among
other things:
10
a. Improper compliance with policies, practices, and procedures in the assessment
11
and implementation of5150 holds;
12
b. Allowing a culture to exist of improper or non-compliance with policies, practices
13
and procedures in the assessment and implementation of 5150 holds;
14
c. Improper and/or erroneous threat assessment in the assessment and.
15
implementation of 5150 holds; and
16
d. Failure to use reasonable care in the hiring, training, and/or supervising of deputies
and other staff at Monterey County Jail.
17
18
95.
As a direct and proximate consequence of the negligent acts of Defendants
19
COUNTY OF MONTEREY and MONTEREY COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, Plaintiff
20
sustained severe emotional distress, humiliation, emotional pain and suffering, and Plaintiff
21
continues to suffer from post-traumatic stress and anxiety relating to this event, which has led to
22
Plaintiff's loss of income and employment, and additional out-of-pocket expenses.
23
96.
Defendants COUNTY OF MO:N"TEREY and MONTEREY COUNTY
24
SHERIFF'S OFFICE are vicarious!}' liable for the tortious acts of its employee. DOE l, that were
2~
committed within the scope and furtherance of her employment at Monterey County Jail.
26
Q7
As such, Plaintiff requests compensatory damages~ reasonable attorneys' fees
'2.7
.::8
Additionally, Plaintiff requests punitive damages due to the malicious nature of the conduct.
19
DaSilva v. Qty ofCarmel-by-th~Sea, et al.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

2
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:
1.
For an award of compensatory damages from Defendants, jointly and severally, in
an amount to be proven at trial;
2.
For an award of punitive damages against the individual defendants sued in their
personal capacity for all actions complained of: including those outside the scope of the
employment;
3.
For an award of attorneys' fees and cost of suit; and
4.
For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.
10
11
Dated: August 7, 2015
12
13
14
Attorneys for Plaintiff J~nifer Da Silva
15
16
17
JYRYDEMAND
18
19
20
Plaintiff JENNIFER DA SILVA hereby demands a trial by jury.

Dated: August 7, 2015
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20
DaSilva v. City ofCarmel-by--the-Sea, et al.
EXHIBIT B
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MONTEREY
3
4
Case No.: Y1 1~9410

Jennifer Little,
Order After Submission
Plaintiff.
vs.
6
1
The City of Carmel-By-The-Sea.

Defendant
8
9
Petitioner's request to be relieved from the prowions of Govt Code sec. 945.4 eame on for bearing on
10
November 7, 2014. At the conclusion of arguments the court took the matter under submission. Now, at a later
11
time, the court issues its nlling.
12
Petitioner was arrested by the Cannel pollee, apparently for resisting them. She was crtminally charged.
13
That charge was ultimately dismissed, and the next day she filed a claim with the City, alleging excessive force by
14
the poltec during their encounter. However, the claim was filed a little mo~ than one month lalertban lhe
1S
Government Code allows. Her claim was rejected by the City as being untimely and she now seeks relief from tbe
16
court under CCP Sec 473.
17
18
She states she did not file the claim sooner because ahe mistakenly believed she could not legally do so
until bet criminal case, arismg out ofthe same i~ident, was concluded.
The City cites Butler " Los Angle.s County (2008) 617 F.Supp.2d 994 in support of its argument that
19
20
, 21
Petitioner should not prevail. That court cited the "clear, plain language;' of Govt. Code Sec. 945 3, which states
that the time m which to file a ~laim against a public entity under Section 91 I ,2 is not extended.
22
Although Sec 945.3 does state that the filing requirements of Sec 911.2 are not extended, there ia nothing
111
that language that forecloses a petition for rehef under CCP Sec 473.
24
25
-1
Munozv. State ofCaJiforma (1995) 33 Cal.App. 4t~ 1767 emphasizes the remedial nature of Sec 473. Its
2
purpose u to grant relief from technical rules that might be a trap for the unwary, and an affirmation of the policy
that cases should be beard on their merits and doubts should be resolved in favor of grantmg relief.
Sec. 945 .3 is titled, "ClVil Action May Not Be Brought Against Peace Officer When Criminal Charges
Pending.'' It is not unreasonable for a lay person to believe the claim filing process to be part ofbrinsing a civil
action. It is not until the last sentence of the statute that the non-extention oftime to tile is found .
The da}' after her criminal case ended Petitioner filed her c;lairn. It was only slightly over a month late.
7
8
There is no prejudice to the City. The court finds that the Petttioner acted under a reasonable mistake.
The Petition is granted.
9
10
Doted:
II
II;, 'l! -rr
12
Robert O'Farrell
13
14
15
II
16
II
L7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-2
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
2
(Code of Civil Procedure Section JOlla)

1 do hereby certify that 1 8JTl employed in the County of Monterey I am over the age of et.ghteen years and not a
party to the w1thin stated cause. 1 placed true and oorrect copies of the Order Arter Submission for collection and
maihng this date following our ordinary business praeticea . I am readily familiar wrth the Court's practices for
collection and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that ':.otre$JJ9"dem:t- l.'i plaeed f<l; tollt::tt""l
s
6
and mailing. it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United St~ Pc:St.li S.erv<~$ m Salanit~.
California. in a sealed envelope wtth postage fully prepaid. The names and addresses of ~ach pers.:m ro v.ilom notJc
was uwled is as follows:
7
&
Stephen F Wagner
Noland, Hamerly, Etienne &. Hoss

POBox2Sl0
Salinas CA 93902-2510
10
11
12
13
t4
Ryan Thompson, Esq.

Law Offices of Vincent P Hurl~y
38 Seascape Village
Aptos CA 9.5003
Date:
NOV 2 0 2014
TERESA A. RISI, Clerk of the Supcnor Court,
15
16
17
- - ------...J Deputy Clerk
Alina Oliver
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-3
EXHIBIT C
946.6. Denial of application for leave to present claim; relief..., CA GOVT 946.6
!Wesfs Annotated California Codes

!Government Code (Refs & Annas)
!Title 1 . General
IDiYision 3.6 Claims and Actions Against Publir Entitles and Public EmJ>lO)Iees (Refs & Annas)
!Part 4 Actions Against Public Entities and Public Employees (Refs & Annas)
!Chapter 2 . Actions Against Public Entities (Refs & Annas)
West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code 946.6
946.6. Denial of application for leave to present claim; relief from provisions of section 945.4; place of filing
petition
Effective: January 1, 2003
Currcntnelis
(a) If an application for leave to present a claim is denied or deemed to be denied pursuant to Section 911.6, a petition may be
made to the court for an order relieving the petitioner from Section 945.4. The proper court for filing the petition is a superior
court that would be a proper court for the trial of an action on the cause of action to which the claim relates. If the petition is
filed in a court which is not a proper court for the deterrn ination of the matter, the court, on motion of any party, shall transfer
the proceeding to a proper court. If an action on the cause of action to which the claim relates would be a limited civil case, a
proceeding pursuant to this section is a limited civil case.
(b) The petition shall show each of the following:
( 1) That application was made to the board under Section 911.4 and was denied or deemed denied.
(2) The reason for failure to present the claim within the time limit specified in Section 91 1.2.
(3) The information required by Section 910.
The petition shall be filed within six months after the application to the board is denied or deemed to be denied pursuant to
Section 911.6.
(c) The court shall relieve the petitioner from the requirements of Section 945.4 if the court finds that the application to the
board under Section 911.4 was made within a reasonable time not to exceed that specified in subdivision (b) of Section 911.4
and was denied or deemed denied pursuant to Section 911.6 and that one or more of the following is applicable:
946.6. Denial of application for leave to present claim; relief... , CA GOVT 946.6
(1) The failure to present the claim was through mistake, inadvertence. surprise, or excusable neglect unless the public entity
establishes that it would be prejudiced in the defense of the claim if the court relieves the petitioner from the requirements of
Section 945.4.
(2) The person who sustained the alleged injury, damage or loss was a minor during all of the time specified in Section 911.2
for the presentation of the claim.
(3) The person who sustained the alleged injury, damage or loss was physically or mentally incapacitated during all of the
time specified in Section 911.2 for the presentation of the claim and by reason of that disability failed to present a claim
during that time.
(4) The person who sustained the alleged injury, damage or loss died before the expiration of the time specified in Section
9.11.2 for the presentation of the claim.
(d) A copy of the petition and a written notice of the time anct place of hearing shall be served betore the hearing as
prescribed by subdivision (b) of Section 1005 of the Code of Civil Procedure on (l) the clerk or secretary or board of the
local public entity, if the respondent is a local public entity, or (2) the Attorney General, if the respondent is the state. If the
petition involves a claim arising out of alleged actions or inactions of the Department of Transportation, service of the
petition and notice of the hearing shaH be made on the Attorney General or the Director of Transportation. Service on the
Attorney General may be accomplished at any of the Attorney General's offices in Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, or
San Francisco. Service on the Director of Transportation may be accomplished only at the Department of Transportation's
headquarters office in Sacramento. lf the petition involves a claim arising out of alleged actions or inactions of a judicial
branch entity, service of the petition and notice of the hearing shall be made in accordance with the following:
(I) If the petition involves a claim arising out of alleged actions or inactions of a superior court or a judge, court executive
officer, or trial court employee, as defined in Section 8 I 1.9, of the court, service shall be made on the court executive officer.
(2) If the petition involves a claim arising out of alleged actions or inactions of a court of appeals or a judge thereof, service
shall be made on the Clerk/Administrator of the court of appeals.
(3) If the petition involves a claim arising out of alleged actions or inactions of the Supreme Court or a judge thereof, service
shall be made on the Clerk of the Supreme Court.
(4) If the petition involves a claim arising out of alleged actions or inactions of the Judicial Council or the Administrative
Office of the Courts, service shall be made on the secretariat of the Judicial Council.
(e) The court shall make an independent determination upon the petition. The determination shall be made upon the basis of
the petition, any affidavits in support of or in opposition to the petition, and any additional evidence received at the hearing
946.6. Denial of application for leave to present claim; relief..., CA GOVT 946.6
on the petition.
(f) If the court makes an order relieving the petitioner from Section 945.4, suit on the cause of action to which the claim
relates shall be filed with the court within 30 days thereafter.
Credits
(Added by Stats.1965, c. 653, p. 2016, 22 . Amended by Stats.l970, c. 4 11 , p. 822, 2; Stats. J987, c. 1201. 22;
Stats.1987, c. 1208. 7; Stats.l989, c. 148, I; Stats. l989, c. 693, 8; Stats.2001, c. 44 (S.B.562), 9; Stats.2002, c. 1007
(A.B.2321), 12.)
West's Ann. Cal. Gov. Code 946.6, CA GOVT 946.6

Current with urgency legislation through Ch. 291 of2015 Reg.Sess.
End of Document
\ ' 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
EXHIBIT D
Fro~Nolana
05/05/2015
#156 P.002/004
05/06/20i5 14 :47
Hawerly
llj0002/001)2
:58PW FAX
FILED
MAY -5 t015
.......
,,.....
OIJUU.-e'
4. ~-tl-7'
.:l&rta
S:- c- .. ,,.
lh
BY FAX
05/06/201~
1447
1156 p 003/004
PROOF OF 8E!RVICE BY IIAIL

Subdtulion of Allome,_clvll
,_,...,.,....by
lnnvc:tlone: Allllr IIIWfnQ a'l

malwrth tn. Subllllblllotl of Altome)t-CIInt llave the tnttJn who nrMifld the dooc.tment
oomp1e11t fl* Ptrd Dl S8Mt:e by Mall. An UfJibat rq')y ol the Ptool of &~Me& by Mellllhould M completed MCIII#Iflled Wlh the
doGUmllnt. Glvf the Bubdutian at A~ fiJd the ootlf*W Prod ~ SM'fr:e by ""'II lD tile OlfJttc f'cr fling. If you .,.
~ ~ ,.,...,. eltse mutit mel
the Ptoald $8niw llyltleil.
theBe,.,.,
1. 1am ower the qe of 18 and not a ,..tr to

Nlldlla or bullnua adcnlela tspedly):
llld.,
aaw cauM.J ""a1811dentof or~ In the oounty whn the mldi11J OCCUI1lld. My
2. f NM11 Ill Sutlellutlan ~A-., CNI by~ trw copy In -.led erMIIape lldlt'elaed tD each p8I'IOn YtfiMe name
and lldchu illhown below end dllpOIIIng tie trMIIap8 k1 the Unlllld Stltal mil wtltl the POIIaQI 1\*y PNPUt.
{1 ) Dlbt d mallng:
NAME AND ADDRESS OF EACH PERSON TO WHOII NOTlCE WAI MAfLEO

4. a . N.mt d penon tei'Wd:
b. AddAIN (llfJIDber. llhet, ~ tllrd ZP):
' Name afper.on ...wd.

d . Actct.l (1Unlr, . , . . lib'. and ZfPJ;
Nlme ofpenon l8tVeCt

f. AdCbla(tunber, 1tmt, . . and ZIP);
g. N.rne of,.,.en 8IIMid:

h.~ (/WJtnb8f, abe( clry. and ZJP):
r. Heme ar person eeMII:

~Add-- (n~.,.
ctlf,- ZJP;.
SUBmTUnON OF ATTORNEY-cML
CWHflout Court Ord..,
......,.
05106/2015 14 :47
FromNoland Hamerly
PROOF OF SERVICE
(Code Civ. Proc. 1013(a), 2015.5)
2
3
STA'IE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MONTEREY
s
6
7
8
9
tO
11
12
...
~
.tlli
~
Q
~: ~
.."'~ ~u..
!
:tJ
a
...~
0
;z:
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of Monterey County. I am over the age
of 18 years and not a party to the within entitled ~tion; my business address i~: 333 Salinas
Street, Post Office Box 2510, Salinas, CA 93902-2510.
On~ date below, I served the attached document(s) entitled: SUBSTITUTION OF
ATTORNEY. on 1bc following JWned pcrson(s) in said action at:
VincentP. HW'ley,Esq.
Ryan Thompson, Esq.
Law Offices ofVmceot P- Hurley
38 Seascape VilJ.ap
Aptos, CA 95003
Fax:
(831)661~
13
.o
by personal service on the above-named person(s) at the above stated address(es).
14
lil
by placing said copy(ies) in a sealed envelope(s)., postage thereon fully prepaid,

and placed for collection and processing for matling following the business's
ordinary pradice with which I am readily familiar. On the same day
coaespondence is plaQOd for oolleetion and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary
course ofbusiness with the United States Postal Service at Salinas, California,
addressed as stated above.
by overnight delivery on the above named party(ies) in said action, by placing a
true and correct copy thereof enclosed in a-sealed envelope in a designated area for
outgoing. same-day pickup by
at 1he offices of Noland, Hamerly,
Etienne&; Hoss for ovemight delivery, billed to Noland, Hamerly, Etienne & Hoss,
and addressed as set forth above.
#156 p 004/004
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
by causing to be transmitted a true eopy thereofto the above-named recipient via

the following facsimile transmission telephone number ("Fax"): (831) 661=4804.
and no interruption of transmission was reported.
22
23
24
I declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and COJ:TeCt.
Executed oil May 6, 2015, at SaUnas, Califomi.a.
25
26
27
28
21264\000\5732!1U:I03114
CBRTIFICATE OF SERVICE
JDII'II/61' LiltU v. City ofCann.I/CQJJe No. M/29420

15 09-28 FILED City's RJN ISO Demurrer - Redacted

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

15 09-28 FILED City's RJN ISO Demurrer - Redacted

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Vincent P. Hurley #111215

Attorneys for Defendants

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. M132929

DEFENDANTS CITY OF CARMEL-BYTHE-SEA AND LUKE E. POWELL'S

California Rule of Court 3.1306(c), Defendants CITY-OF-CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA and

Plaintiff's Complaint for Damages against City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, et al., bearing a

which is attached as Exhibit A.

Case No. Ml32929

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE NO.2:

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE NO. 3:

copy of Cal. Gov't Code section 946.6(f) is attached as Exhibit C.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE NO. 4:

Andrew B. Kreeft, a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit D.

Dated: September]'{ 2015

Case No. Ml32929

ANDREW B. KREEFT (SBN 126673)

CA~! '1P1;4AO ~f!Nl' c:;~~f.~J3~NCE

Attorneys for Plaintiff

PLACE: Courtroom ,: d 2nd Fl

COUNTY OF MONTEREY- UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

~).:) - ~:~.. ;i~~-.

[JURY TRIAL DEMANDED]

Plaintiff JENNIFER DASILVA, formerly known as Jennifer Little ( .. Plaintiff") hereby

bodily injury and other damages.

Plaintiff is a resident of Cannel, California in the County of Monterey and a

Plaintiff was a 37-year-old female with no prior criminal record.

DaSilva v. Cily of Cannel-by-the-Sea, eta/.

Defendant CITY OF CARMEL-BY-TilE-SEA is a local entity in the State of

Defendant LUKE E. POWELL ("SERGEANT POWELL") was a Police Sergeant

for the CITY OF CARMEL BY-THE-SEA.

Defendant COUNTY OF MONTEREY is a public enb.ty, duly organized and

practices, and customs of the MONTEREY COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE. COUNTY OF

MONTEREY employs 50 or more persons.

Defendant MONTEREY COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE (the "SHERIFF'S

is responsible for the day-to-day operatlonsofMonterey County Jail, including promulgating

to the operation of the facilities.

The claims herein are brought against Defendants COUNTY OF MONTEREY

DaSilva v. City ofCarmel-by-the-Sea. et al.

within the course and scope of this agency.

Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants DOES 1

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

jurisdictional limit ofthis Court.

witnesses either work or live within.the County of Monterey.

asked him to come pick her up.

Even though it was approximately 9:00p.m. on a weeknight, during which time

Plaintiff decided to try to work things out directly with Balint.

nearby aunt's house.

apartment to wait for the police by her vehicle.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

DaSilva v, City ofCarmel-&y-the-Sea, et l.

domestic violence or physical altercations of any sort between them.

After questioning Balint, SERGEANT POWELL returned to Plaintif( who was in

questioning of Plaintiff, SERGEANT POWELL was immediately confrontational and aggressive.

Plaintiff maintained a calm, respectful tone as SERGEANT POWELL repeatedly demanded to

phone access. Plaintiff became disconcerted as SERGEANT POWELL repeatedly interrupted

her and accused her of lying.

As SERGEANT POWELL continued his aggressive questioning, Plaintiff grew

DaSilva v. City ofCannel~b_!J-the-Sea, eta/.

Plaintiff was placed in handcuffs.

Plaintiff was transported to Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula

~ergency Room physician.