UNITED S T A T E S DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

ERICA BERG Plaintiff,

c y

vs.
LEONARD GALLO Defendant, MICHAEL SORBO Defendant, OFFICER EMERMAN Defendant, OFFICER FINOIA Defendant, OFFICER JOHN MILLER Defendant, SERGEANT KATTIS Defendant, MAYOR JOSEPH MATURO Defendant, SGT. FRANK MONTAGNA Defendant, UNKNOWN JOHN DOE OFFICERS Defendants. TOWN OF EAST HAVEN, CT Defendant. COMPLAINT : :

: : :

1. This is an action to redress a conspiracy by the defendants the object of which was to

utterly deprive the plaintiff of civil rights secured to her by the Constitution and laws of the United States, as well as those of the State of Connecticut, and by any notion of common human decency. This conspiracy was so low, and so shadowy, and motivated by such

petty ambitions as to resemble nothing so much as a sad, cruel parody of an organized crime family. In this case, armed with badges and authority, the conspirators took aim at the plaintiff with the intent to punish her for her political affiliations and beliefs, and at the same time to further their own political aspirations and designs on town control. When their cancerous conspiracy came to light, they offered "protection" and favors. The plaintiff, undeterred, would not be so deprived of her rights and she brings this action seeking justice.

2. By way of the acts and omissions, policies and practices more fully described below, the defendants caused the False Arrest and Malicious Prosecution of the Plaintiff Erica Berg, and said claims arise under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The defendants also engaged in conduct that denied the plaintiff equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and retaliated against the plaintiff for having exercised rights guaranteed to her under the First Amendment. In the manner described herein, the defendants deprived the plaintiff of her right to be free from false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress under the laws of the State of Connecticut which is invoked under the supplementary jurisdiction of this court.

3. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under the provisions of 1331, 1343(3) and 1367(a) of Title 28 and 1983 and 1988 of Title 42 of the United States Code.

4. During all times mentioned in this Complaint, the plaintiff Erica Berg was, and still is, an adult resident of the State of Connecticut, residing in Branford, Connecticut.

5. During all times mentioned in this Complaint, the defendant LEONARD GALLO was, and still is, an adult resident of the State of Connecticut, employed as a law enforcement officer by the Town of East Haven, acting under color of law. His business address is East Haven Police Department, 471 North High Street, East Haven, CT. He is sued in his individual capacity.

6. During all times mentioned in this Complaint, defendant MICHAEL SORBO was a law enforcement officer, and former Republican candidate for Town Council, employed by the Town of East Haven acting under color of law. He is sued in his individual capacity only.

7. During all times mentioned in this Complaint, defendant Officer EMERMAN was a law enforcement officer employed by the Town of East Haven acting under color of law. He is sued in his individual capacity only.

8. During all times mentioned in this Complaint, defendant Officer FINOIA was a law enforcement officer employed by the Town of East Haven acting under color of law. He is sued in his individual capacity only.

9. During all times mentioned in this Complaint, defendant Sergeant KATTIS was a law enforcement officer employed by the Town of East Haven acting under color of law. He is sued in his individual capacity only.

10. During all times mentioned in this Complaint, defendant JOSEPH MATURO was either a high ranking member of the Republican Party of East Haven or mayor of East 3

Haven who was opposed by the plaintiff's boss, April Capone. Maturo is currently the mayor of the Town of East Haven and he is sued in his individual capacity only.

11. During all times mentioned in this Complaint, defendant Sergeant FRANK MONTAGNA was a law enforcement officer employed by the Town of East Haven acting under color of law. He is sued in his individual capacity only.

12. During all times mentioned in this Complaint, defendant Officer JOHN MILLER was a law enforcement officer employed by the Town of East Haven acting under color of law. He is sued in his individual capacity only.

13. During all times mentioned in this Complaint, defendant JOHN DOE Officer was a law enforcement officer employed by the Town of East Haven acting under color of law. He is sued in his individual capacity only.

14. At all times mentioned in this Complaint, the defendants acted jointly and in concert with each other. Each defendant had the duty and the opportunity to protect the plaintiff from the unlawful actions of the other defendant but each defendant failed and refused to perform such duty, thereby proximately causing the plaintiffs injuries herein complained of.

15.

No later than July 19, 2009, defendants GALLO, SORBO, EMERAN, FINOIA,

KATTIS, MATURO, MILLER, and JOHN DOE were aware that the plaintiff was a Democratic party member working for Mayor Capone, a political opponent of MATURO. The defendants supported MATURO and wished to curry his favor, as GALLO and MATURO had a long-standing relationship going back more than a decade. Together, the
4

defendants conspired to implement a strategy to defame the plaintiff, chill her exercise of her First Amendment rights, deny her equal protection of the laws, and falsely arrest her in order to foster MATURO's political ambitions and exact revenge for a perceived slight following Capone's election in 2007.

16. This strategy was uncovered and began to unravel when, on or about July 19, 2009, defendant SORBOin concert with the other defendantsswore a false complaint alleging that the plaintiff and Capone had interfered with his performance of his official police duties. Specifically, SORBO accused the plaintiff of removing tickets he had placed on cars that were parked at a town beach and which he had authorized to be towed. This accusation was a bold-faced lie, concocted to retaliate against the plaintiff for her political affiliation with the defendants' Democratic rival, Mayor Capone. Defendants EMERMAN, FINOIA, KATTIS, MILLER, and DOE were aware of the false allegation yet deliberately failed to intervene to prevent the unjust arrest of the plaintiff.

17. This complaint was made both orally and in written form, and was submitted by the defendants in order to procure a warrant for the plaintiffs arrest. This complaint was false, and the defendants published these statements with actual malice in that either they (a) knew the statements were false, or (b) they acted with reckless disregard for the truth of such statements.

18. Defendant MILLER, knowing the allegation to be false nevertheless signed off on the police report "memorializing" the events July 19, 2009 that served as the basis for the issuance of an of arrest warrant for the plaintiff.

19. Defendant MONTAGNA, knowing the allegation to be false nevertheless signed off on the arrest warrant affidavit thus authorizing the arrest of the plaintiff on false charges. The warrant was disseminated to a prosecuting authority knowing the prosecutor would rely on it in determining whether to place and maintain charges against the plaintiff.

20. The complaint the defendant SORBO published to and caused to be filed with the East Haven Police Department and New Haven Superior Court would, to a person of common and reasonable understanding, imply that the plaintiff had engaged in illegal conduct and was a criminal. The plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer damages as a result of the publication of this false complaint.

21. A short time after the warrant was signed on August 31, 2009, the plaintiff learned of its existence and was advised to turn herself in to the East Haven Police Department on September 4, 2009 before GALLO could implement a plan to have her arrested and paraded before the news media. Despite this forewarning, the defendants learned that the plaintiff had turned herself in and detained her, notified local media, and held her for the sole purpose of allowing the media to arrive on scene so that the defendants could force the plaintiff to suffer through an unlawful "perp walk". Unfortunately, media members were not allowed into the East Haven Police Department locker room, where they would have seen derogatory pictures of the plaintiff and Mayor Capone hanging in full-view and with the defendants' approval.

22. On a number of occasions since the arrest, defendant GALLO told the plaintiff that despite the lack of any probable cause for her arrest he had been forced to push the
6

warrant through on the basis of the false complaint because, "How would it have looked if we'd only arrested April?"

23. With a federal investigation of the East Haven Police Department in full swing and fearing that he may be arrested, defendant GALLO attempted to maintain control over the plaintiff by offering her employment. Defendant GALLO made it clear that the final decision about whether he would hire her was to be made only after conferring with defendant MATURO.

24. Defendant GALLO did in fact meet with defendant MATURO in December 201 l a n d employment of the plaintiff was approved whereupon defendant GALLO called plaintiff to inform her.

25. Defendant MATURO has continued to mention the concocted arrest of the plaintiff when interviewed publicly about his involvement in political scandals that have tarnished the reputation of East Haven causing further embarrassment and humiliation to the plaintiff.

26. Given the known falsehood of SORBO's complaint, there was no probable cause to arrest the plaintiff for any criminal act.

27. The plaintiff declared her innocence of the charges levied against her and prevailed when all charges were dismissed by the Hon. Earl Richards on February 22, 2010.

28. On information and belief, defendant TOWN, as a matter of policy and practice, has with deliberate indifference failed to sanction or discipline police officers for violating citizen's constitutional rights and were aware of violations of constitutional rights by Town

of East Haven Police Officers, thereby encouraging said officers, including all named defendants, to continue to engage in unlawful conduct.

29. On information and belief the defendant TOWN has a practice, custom or usage of deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of its citizens, which caused the violation of the named plaintiffs rights. This pattern of conduct, while carried out under color of law, has no justification or excuse in law, but instead is improper and illegal and is unrelated to any activity in which police officers may properly and legally engage in the course of their duties to enforce laws, protect persons and property and insure civil order.

30. On information and belief the defendant TOWN pursued the aforementioned policies, practices, customs or usages and encouraged and or acquiesced in the practice of harassing and or intimidation of its citizens in violation of their constitutional rights. The actions of all named defendants complained herein, resulted from the performance of their duties pursuant to said policy.

31. As a result of the above described policies and customs, police officers of the defendant TOWN, including all named defendant police officers, believed that their actions would not be properly monitored and that misconduct would not be investigated or sanctioned but would be tolerated.

32. Said policies, practices and customs of defendant TOWN complained of herein, as well as their omissions, deprived all named plaintiffs of their rights secured by the Fourth,

Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983.

33. All named defendant officers conspired to conceal the truth of the events that occurred on July 19, 2009.

34. All named defendant officers acted in furtherance of the plan to conceal the truth by not reporting their unlawful conduct, that of unlawfully arresting the plaintiff, to any supervising officers or any entity with authority over their conduct or memorializing the unlawful conduct in any written notes or written reports.

35. All named defendant officers acted in furtherance of the plan to conceal the truth by not reporting their unlav\/ful conduct, that of unlawfully retaliating against the plaintiff for having exercised rights guaranteed to her under the First Amendment.

36. Defendant MATURO acted in furtherance of the plan to conceal the truth by directing defendant GALLO to hire the plaintiff in an attempt to buy her silence as to the unlawful acts committed by the defendant officers.

37. The arrest and prosecution of the plaintiff was carried out by the defendants with malice and without probable cause, all in an effort to destroy her humanity.

38. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the defendants herein described, the plaintiff suffered loss of liberty and reputation, humiliation and emotional
9

distress.

39. In the manner described above, the defendants intentionally and maliciously acted to deprive the plaintiff of her Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures by falsely arresting her.

40. In the manner described above, the defendants intentionally and maliciously retaliated against the plaintiff for having exercised her rights under the First Amendment.

41. In the manner described above, the defendants intentionally and maliciously prosecuted the plaintiff by intentionally withholding exculpatory information and manufacturing false evidence, but for which no finding of probable cause could have been made.

42. In the manner described above, the defendants intentionally and maliciously acted to deprive the plaintiff of her right to equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

43. In the manner described above, the defendants the defendants deprived the plaintiff of her right to be free from false imprisonment, false arrest, and malicious prosecution in violation of Connecticut common law.

44. . In the manner described above, the defendants defamed the plaintiff in violation of Connecticut common law.

45. The conduct of the defendants described above was extreme and outrageous and

10

was carried out with the knowledge that it was likely to cause the plaintiff to suffer emotional distress, all in violation of Connecticut common law.

WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs claim judgment against the defendants as follows:

A. Compensatory damages in an amount this Court shall consider to be just and fair;

B. Punitive damages in an amount this Court shall consider to be just and fair;

C. Attorney's fees and the costs of this action;

D. Such other relief as this court shall consider to be fair and equitable.

11

CLAIM FOR A JURY TRIAL

The plaintiff claims trial by jury in this case.

THE PLAINTIFF, ERICA BERG

By Is/ Glenn M. Conway Federal Bar No. cti7946 Conway Law Firm 7 Elm Street, 2"^ Floor New Haven, CT 06510 T: 203-624-1400 F: 203-624-6110 E; conwavlawfirm(a)gmail.com

By Is/ K. Murray Smith, Esq. Federal bar No. ct27657 129 Church St., Ste. 300 New Haven, CT 06510 T; 203-980-7559 F: 866-236-5477 E: Kevinsmithlaw@Gmail.com

12