Case 2:24-cv-09212-AH-PVC Document 36 Filed 04/11/25 Page 1 of 27 Page ID

#:300

1 LUIS A. CARRILLO, SBN 70398

MICHAEL S. CARRILLO, SBN 258878
2 DOMINIQUE L. BOUBION, SBN 336915
3 CARRILLO LAW FIRM, LLP
1499 Huntington Drive, Suite 402
4 South Pasadena, California 91030
Tel: (626) 799-9375
5
Fax: (626) 799-9380
6
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
CYNTHIA MEZA; CHRISTOPHER Case No.: 2:24-cv-09212-AH-PVC
11 MEZA; and, DORA HERNANDEZ,
12 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
FOR DAMAGES FOR:
13 Plaintiffs,
1. FOURTH AMENDMENT,
14 EXCESSIVE FORCE
v.
15 (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
2. FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT,
16 DENIAL OF MEDICAL CARE
CITY OF SAN GABRIEL, NORI (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
17 SMITH, JASSON RIOS-VEGA, and 3. FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT,
18 DOES 3 through 10, inclusive, INTERFERENCE WITH
FAMILIAL RELATIONS
19 Defendants. (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
4. MUNICIPAL LIABILITY,
20 UNCONSTITUTIONAL CUSTOM
OR POLICY (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
21 5. MUNICIPAL LIABILITY,
22 FAILURE TO TRAIN
(42 U.S.C. § 1983)
23 6. BATTERY (WRONGFUL DEATH)
7. NEGLIGENCE (WRONGFUL
24 DEATH AND SURVIVAL
25 ACTION)
8. VIOLATION OF BANE ACT
26 (CAL. CIVIL CODE §52.1)
27 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
28
1
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Case 2:24-cv-09212-AH-PVC Document 36 Filed 04/11/25 Page 2 of 27 Page ID
#:301

1 COME NOW, Plaintiffs CYNTHIA MEZA, CHRISTOPHER MEZA, and

2 DORA HERNANDEZ (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), alleging as follows:
3 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4 1. This Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
5 1343(a)(3)-(4) because Plaintiffs assert claims arising under the laws of the United
6 States including 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the
7 United States Constitution. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs'
8 claims arising under state law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), because those claims
9 are so related to the federal claims that they form part of the same case or controversy
10 under Article III of the United States Constitution.
11 2. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because
12 Defendants reside in this district and all incidents, events, and occurrences giving rise
13 to this action occurred in this district.
14 INTRODUCTION
15 3. This civil rights and state tort action seeks compensatory and punitive
16 damages from Defendants for violating various rights under the United States
17 Constitution and state law in connection with the fatal officer-involved shooting of
18 Plaintiffs' father and life partner, Pedro Meza, on July 31, 2024.
19 4. Plaintiffs allege that the death of Pedro Meza (“Decedent” and/or “Pedro
20 Meza”) was a result of the excessive use of deadly force by Defendants CITY OF SAN
21 GABRIEL (“CITY”), NORI SMITH, JASSON RIOS-VEGA and DOES 3-10; and was
22 also a result of Defendants’ failure to provide reasonable medical care to Decedent
23 despite Decedent’s serious medical condition after being shot numerous times; and was
24 a result of Defendants deliberate indifference to Decedent’s Constitutional rights.
25 5. The policies and customs behind shootings of civilians such as Pedro
26 Meza, and the failure to deescealate the interaction, and employ less-lethal weapons,
27 are fundamentally unconstitutional and have violated the civil rights of residents of the
28 CITY, such as Plaintiffs and Decedent. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek by means of this
2
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Case 2:24-cv-09212-AH-PVC Document 36 Filed 04/11/25 Page 3 of 27 Page ID
#:302

1 civil rights action to hold accountable those responsible for the death of Decedent, and
2 to challenge the unconstitutional policies and practices of the CITY and all Defendants.
3 PARTIES
4 6. Plaintiff CYNTHIA MEZA is an individual residing in the County of
5 Los Angeles and is the natural daughter of Decedent. CYNTHIA MEZA sues in her
6 individual capacity as the daughter of Decedent and a representative capacity as a
7 successor-in-interest to Decedent pursuant to California Civil Code §377.60.
8 CYNTHIA MEZA seeks both survival and wrongful death damages under federal and
9 state law.
10 7. Plaintiff CHRISTOPHER MEZA is an individual residing in the County
11 of Los Angeles and the natural son of Decedent. CHRISTOPHER MEZA sues in his
12 idividual capacity as the son of Decedent and in the representative capacity as a
13 successor-in-interest to Decedent pursuant to California Civil Code § 377.60.
14 CHRISTOPHER MEZA seeks both survival damages and wrongful death damages
15 under federal and state law.
16 8. Plaintiff DORA HERNANDEZ is an individual residing in the County
17 of Los Angeles and is the life partner of Decedent and the biological mother of
18 Decedent’s two adult children, Plaintiffs CYNTHIA MEZA and CHRISTOPHER
19 MEZA. Plaintiff DORA HERNANDEZ sues in her individual capacity as the life
20 partner of Decedent.
21 9. At all relevant times, Defendant CITY OF SAN GABRIEL (“CITY”) is
22 and was a duly organized public entity, form unknown, existing under the laws of the
23 State of California. CITY is a chartered subdivision of the State of California with the
24 capacity to be sued. CITY is responsible for the actions, omissions, policies,
25 procedures, practices, and customs of its various agents and agencies, including the
26 San Gabriel Police Department and its agents and employees. At all relevant times,
27 Defendant CITY was responsible for assuring that the actions omissions, policies,
28 procedures, practices, and customs of the San Gabriel Police Department, and its
3
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Case 2:24-cv-09212-AH-PVC Document 36 Filed 04/11/25 Page 4 of 27 Page ID
#:303

1 employees and agents complied with the laws of the United States of the State of
2 California. At all relevant times, CITY was the employer of Defendants NORI SMITH
3 and JASSON RIOS-VEGA and DOES 3-10.
4 10. Defendant NORI SMITH (“SMITH”) is a police officer for the CITY
5 working for the San Gabriel Police Department at the time of the incident. SMITH was
6 acting under color of law within the course and scope of her employment with the
7 CITY and San Gabriel Police Department at all relevant times. SMITH was acting with
8 the complete authority and ratification of her principal, Defendant CITY.
9 11. Defendant JASSON RIOS-VEGA (“RIOS-VEGA”) is a police officer
10 for the CITY working for the San Gabriel Police Department at the time of the incident.
11 SMITH was acting under color of law within the course and scope of her employment
12 with the CITY and San Gabriel Police Department at all relevant times. SMITH was
13 acting with the complete authority and ratification of her principal, Defendant CITY.
14 12. Defendants DOES 3-5 are police officers for the CITY’s Police
15 Department (“DOE OFFICERS”). At all relevant times, DOE OFFICERS were acting
16 under color of law within the course and scope of their duties as officers for the CITY’s
17 Police Department; and were acting with the complete authority and ratification of their
18 principal, Defendant CITY.
19 13. Defendants DOES 6-10 are managerial, supervisorial, and policy-making
20 employees of the CITY’s Police Department who were acting under color of law within
21 the course and scope of their employment for the CITY’s Police Department at the time
22 of this incident (“DOE SUPERVISORS”). At all relevant times, DOE
23 SUPERVISORS were acting with the complete authority and ratification of their
24 principal, Defendant CITY.
25 14. On information and belief, DOES 3-10 were residents of the County of
26 Los Angeles, California at all relevant times.
27 15. In doing the acts, failings, and/or omissions as hereinafter described,
28 Defendants DOE OFFICERS were acting on the implied and actual permission and
4
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Case 2:24-cv-09212-AH-PVC Document 36 Filed 04/11/25 Page 5 of 27 Page ID
#:304

1 consent of Defendants DOE SUPERVISORS.

2 16. In doing the acts, failings, and/or omissions as hereinafter described,
3 Defendants DOE SUPERVISORS were acting on the implied and actual permission
4 and consent of the CITY.
5 17. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, association
6 or otherwise of Defendant DOES 3-10, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs, who
7 otherwise sue these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will seek leave to
8 amend this complaint to show the true names and capacities of these Defendants when
9 they have been ascertained. Each of the fictiously named Defendants is responsible in
10 some manner for the conduct or liabilities alleged herein. Defendants DOES 3-10 are
11 sued in their individual capacities.
12 18. At all times mentioned herein, each and every Defendant, including
13 DOES 3-10, was the agent of each and every other Defendant and had the legal duty
14 to oversee and supervise the hiring, conduct, and employment of each and every
15 Defendant.
16 19. All of the acts complained of herein by Plaintiffs against Defendants,
17 including DOES 3-10, were done and performed by said Defendants by and through
18 their authorized agents, servants, and/or employees, all of whom at all relevant times
19 herein were acting with the course, purpose, and scope of said agency, service, and/or
20 employment capacity. Moreover, Defendants and their agents ratified (or will ratify)
21 all of the acts complained herein.
22 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
23 20. On or about July 31, 2024, at approximately 8:55 p.m., Defendant NORI
24 SMITH attempted to conduct a traffic stop of Pedro Meza for an alleged traffic
25 violation. Pedro Meza initially failed to stop, leading to a short vehicle pursuit. The
26 pursuit ended at approximately 9:01 p.m., when Pedro Meza stopped his vehicle at a
27 cul-de-sac at the 2600 block of Charlotte Avenue in the City of Rosemead, California.
28 21. Immediately after Pedro Meza brought his vehicle to a stop, Defendants
5
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Case 2:24-cv-09212-AH-PVC Document 36 Filed 04/11/25 Page 6 of 27 Page ID
#:305

1 NORI SMITH and JASSON RIOS-VEGA exited their patrol vehicles and opened fire
2 indiscriminatly on Pedro Meza, who was unarmed.
3 22. Defendants SMITH and RIOS-VEGA did not give Pedro Meza any verbal
4 warning before or during the shooting that deadly force—or any force—would be used.
5 23. After SMITH ceased firing, RIOS-VEGA continued to fire more than 30
6 additional rounds at the already injured and unarmed Pedro Meza. Defendent RIOS-
7 VEGA fired at Pedro Meza as he falling to the ground. Even after Pedro Meza had
8 been struck multiple times and was lying on the ground, RIOS-VEGA continued to fire
9 at him, striking him again.
10 24. In total, Defendants NORI SMIH and JASSON RIOS-VEGA discharged
11 forty-seven (47) rounds at Pedro Meza, striking him six (6) times. The gunshot
12 wounds inflicted severe physical injuries, causing pre-death pain and suffering, and
13 eventually killing him. Pedro Meza was unarmed at the time he was shot and killed.
14 Pedro Meza was 50 years old at the time of his death.
15 25. After SMITH and RIOS-VEGA discharged their weapons and were aware
16 of Decedent’s deteriorating physical condition caused by the discharge of their
17 weapons, Defendants waited several minutes before summoning paramedics to render
18 medical care. The delay of medical care to Decedent was a contributing cause of
19 Decedent’s harm, injury, pain, suffering, and ultimate death.
20 26. At the time of the shooting, SMITH and RIOS-VEGA did not have
21 information that Decedent was armed with a weapon of any kind. At the time of the
22 shooting, Decedent was unarmed and was not armed with a knife or any other
23 potentially harmful material. Further, based on information and belief, at the time of
24 the shooting, Decedent was not capable of causing death or serious bodily injury
25 necessitating the use of deadly force. At the time of SMITH’s and RIOS-VEGA’s uses
26 of deadly force, Decedent posed no immediate threat of injury, including death or
27 serious physical injury, to SMITH and RIOS-VEGA, or any other person, since he was
28 unarmed, and had stopped his vehicle.
6
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Case 2:24-cv-09212-AH-PVC Document 36 Filed 04/11/25 Page 7 of 27 Page ID
#:306

1 27. Defendants SMITH and RIOS-VEGA did not give Decedent any
2 commands prior to shooting Decedent, despite it being feasible to do so; and did not
3 give Decedent a verbal warning that deadly force would be used prior to shooting
4 Decedent, despite it being feasible to do so.
5 28. Defendants SMITH and RIOS-VEGA did not properly and adequately
6 assess the need to detain, arrest, and use force, including deadly force against
7 Decedent; did not employ tactics to de-escalate the situation; did not give Decedent
8 sufficient time to comprehend the presence of officers; did not develop a tactical plan;
9 did not speak to Decedent in a sensitive and non-threatening manner; and did not give
10 Decedent the opportunity to cooperate with the instructions of police officers.
11 29. Decedent made no aggressive movements toward Defendants Defendants
12 SMITH and RIOS-VEGA; Decedent did not lunge toward Defendants Defendants
13 SMITH and RIOS-VEGA; Decedent did not move toward Defendants SMITH and
14 RIOS-VEGA; Decedent did not step forward toward Defendants SMITH and RIOS-
15 VEGA; Decedent did not make any furtive gestures that would suggest to the
16 Defendants SMITH and RIOS-VEGA that Decedent was attempting, or intending to
17 inflict harm upon Defendants SMITH and RIOS-VEGA, or any other person.
18 30. Defendants SMITH and RIOS-VEGA did not employ tactics to de-
19 escalate the situation; failed to give Decedent time and space to understand the
20 presence of the officers; failed to give Decedent time and space to accept the presence
21 of the officers; failed to approach and speak to Decedent in a non-threatening manner;
22 and failed to give Decedent the opportunity to consent to and cooperate with the
23 instructions of the officers.
24 31. Decedent was not an immediate threat to anyone at the time Defendants
25 SMITH and RIOS-VEGA shot and killed Decedent. The Plaintiffs are informed and
26 believe that at no time prior to Defendants SMITH and RIOS-VEGA discharging his
27 or her weapon, that no officer, or other person, was facing an imminent threat of serious
28 physical injury; or that no officer was incapable of neutralizing and/or effectuating the
7
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Case 2:24-cv-09212-AH-PVC Document 36 Filed 04/11/25 Page 8 of 27 Page ID
#:307

1 seizure of Decedent using any of a variety of readily available less-than-lethal means

2 or strategies. The force used by the Defendants SMITH and RIOS-VEGA, was
3 unnecessary, excessive, and unreasonable under the totality of the circumstances.
4 32. The involved officers shot Decedent even though he was not an immediate
5 threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officers or anyone else and there were
6 other less lethal options available. SMITH and RIOS-VEGA did not show a reverance
7 for human life. The involved officers are responsible for every single shot they fired
8 and this was not an immediate defense of life situation.
9 33. Defendants SMITH and RIOS-VEGA had no legal justification for using
10 force against Decedent and SMITH’s and RIOS-VEGA’s use of force while carrying
11 out their officer duties was unreasonable use of force, expecially since Decedent was
12 unarmed when he was fatally shot without verbal warning or any commands.
13 34. On information and belief, Defendants SMITH and RIOS-VEGA had no
14 information that Decedent had committed a felony.
15 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
16 Unreasonable Search and Seizure - Excessive Force (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
17 By Plaintiffs CYNTHIA MEZA and CHRISTOPHER MEZA against
18 Defendants NORI SMITH and JASSON RIOS-VEGA
19 35. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1
20 through 34 of this First Amended Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully
21 set forth herein.
22 36. The unreasonable use of force by Defendants SMITH and RIOS-VEGA
23 deprived the Decedent of his right to be secure in his person against unreasonable
24 searches and seizures as guaranteed to Decedent under the Fourth Amendment to the
25 United States Constitution and applied to state actors by the Fourteenth Amendment.
26 37. As a result, Decedent suffered extreme pre-death pain and suffering and
27 eventually suffered a loss of life. Plaintiffs have also been deprived of the life-long
28 love, companionship, comfort, support, society, care, and sustenance of Decedent, and
8
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Case 2:24-cv-09212-AH-PVC Document 36 Filed 04/11/25 Page 9 of 27 Page ID
#:308

1 will continue to be so deprived for the remainder of their natural lives. Plaintiffs are
2 also claiming funeral expenses and loss of financial support.
3 38. As a result of the conduct of Defendants SMITH and RIOS-VEGA, they
4 are liable for Decedent’s injuries, either because they were integral participants in the
5 use of excessive force, or because they failed to intervene to prevent these violations.
6 39. This use of deadly force was excessive and unreasonable under the
7 circumstances. Decedent never verbally threatened anyone prior to being fatally shot
8 by SMITH and RIOS-VEGA. Further, SMITH and RIOS-VEGA had no information
9 that Decedent was armed with any kind of weapon, and there was no information that
10 Decedent had physically injured or attempted to physically injur anyone prior to being
11 fatally shot. Defendants’ actions thus deprived Decedent of his right to be free from
12 unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment and applied to state
13 actors by the Fourteenth Amendment.
14 40. Decedent was not an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury at
15 the time of the shooting.
16 41. The conduct of Defendants SMITH and RIOS-VEGA was willful,
17 wanton, malicious, and done with reckless disregard for the rights and safety of
18 Decedent and therefore warrants the imposition of exemplary and punitive damages as
19 to Defendants SMITH and RIOS-VEGA.
20 42. Plaintiffs bring these claims as successors-in-interests to the Decedent,
21 and seek both survival and wrongful death damages for the violation of Decedent’s
22 rights.
23 43. Plaintiffs also seek attorney’s fees under this claim.
24
25
26 //
27 //
28 //
9
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Case 2:24-cv-09212-AH-PVC Document 36 Filed 04/11/25 Page 10 of 27 Page ID
#:309

1 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2 Fourteenth Amendment - Denial of Medical Care (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
3 By Plaintiffs CYNTHIA MEZA and CHRISTOPHER MEZA against
4 Defendants SMITH and RIOS-VEGA
5 44. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1
6 through 43 of this First Amended Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully
7 set forth herein.
8 45. The denial of medical care by Defendants SMITH and RIOS-VEGA
9 deprived Decedent of his right to be secure in his persons against unreasonable searches
10 and seizures as guaranteed to Decedent under the Fourth Amendment to the United
11 States Constitution and applied to state actors by the Fourteenth Amendment.
12 46. As a result, Decedent suffered extreme mental and physical pain and
13 eventually suffered a loss of life and earning capacity. Plaintiffs have also been
14 deprived of the life-long love, companishionship, comfort, support, society, care, and
15 sustenance of Decedent, and will continue to be so deprived for the remainder of their
16 natural lives. Plaintiffs also claiming funeral and burial expenses and loss of financial
17 support.
18 47. Defendants SMITH and RIOS-VEGA knew that failure to provide timely
19 medical treatment to Decedent could result in further significant injury or the
20 unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain, but disregarded that serious medical need,
21 causing Decedent’s death.
22 48. After shooting Decedent, SMITH and RIOS-VEGA did not timely
23 summon or provide timely meidcal attention for Decedent who was bleeding profusely
24 and had obvious injuries and SMITH and RIOS-VEGA did not allow, and rather
25 prevented responding medical personnel on-scene to timely render medical
26 aid/assistance to Decedent.
27 49. The conduct of Defendants SMITH and RIOS-VEGA was willful,
28
10
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Case 2:24-cv-09212-AH-PVC Document 36 Filed 04/11/25 Page 11 of 27 Page ID
#:310

1 wanton, malicious, and done with reckless disregard for the rights and safety of
2 Decedent and therefore warrants the imposition of exemplary and punitive damages as
3 to Defendants SMITH and RIOS-VEGA.
4 50. Plaintiffs bring this claim as successors-in-interests to the Decedent, and
5 seek both survival and wrongful death damages for the violation of Decedent’s rights.
6 51. Plaintiffs also seek attorney’s fees under this claim.
7 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
8 Fourteenth Amendment – Interference with Familial Relations
9 (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
10 By All Plaintiffs against Defendants SMITH and RIOS-VEGA
11 52. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1
12 through 51of this First Amended Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully
13 set forth herein.
14 53. CYNTHIA MEZA had a cognizable interest under the Due Process
15 Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution to be free from
16 state actions that deprive her of life, liberty, or property in such a manner as to shock
17 the conscience, including but not limited to, unwarranted state interference in
18 Plaintiff’s familial relationship with her father, Decedent.
19 54. CHRISTOPHER MEZA had a cognizable interest under the Due Process
20 Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution to be free from
21 state actions that deprive him of life, liberty, or property in such a manner as to shock
22 the conscience, including but not limited to, unwarranted state interference in
23 Plaintiff’s familial relationship with his father, Decedent.
24 55. DORA HERNANDEZ had a cognizable interest under the Due Process
25 Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution to be free from
26 state actions that deprive her of life, liberty, or property in such a manner as to shock
27 the conscience, including but not limited to, unwarranted state interference in
28 Plaintiff’s familial relationship with her life partner, Pedro Meza. Pedro was the love
11
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Case 2:24-cv-09212-AH-PVC Document 36 Filed 04/11/25 Page 12 of 27 Page ID
#:311

1 of DORA HERNANDEZ’s life. DORA HERNANDEZ and Pedro Meza met and
2 started dating in 1994. That same year, they fell in love and moved in together. They
3 have never separated from each other since. DORA HERNANDEZ and Pedro Meza
4 welcomed their first child into this world, CYNTHIA MEZA. Each year, DORA
5 HERNANDEZ and Pedro Meza commemorated their relationship on the date of
6 CYNTHIA’s birth. They also had a second child, CHRISTOPHER MEZA, together.
7 Pedro Meza, DORA HERNANDEZ, CYNTHIA MEZA, and CHRISTOPHER MEZA
8 were a tight-knit family unit that loved to spend time together. Pedro Meza and DORA
9 HERNANDEZ were together for 30 years. DORA HERNANDEZ and Pedro Meza
10 referred to each other as husband and wife, and family and friends referred to them as
11 husband and wife. They shared finances, household responsibilities, and socialized
12 together. Together, Pedro Meza and DORA HERNANDEZ had two children and eight
13 grandchildren, and Pedro Meza played an significnant role in each of their lives. Pedro
14 Meza and DORA HERNANDEZ inextricably linked their finances, had an intimate
15 spousal-like relationship as longtime cohabitants who together parented their two
16 biological children.
17 56. As a result of the excessive force by Defendants SMITH and RIOS-
18 VEGA, Decedent died. Plaintiffs were thereby deprived of their constitutional right of
19 familial relationship with Decedent.
20 57. Defendants SMITH and RIOS-VEGA, acting under color of state law,
21 thus violated the Fourteenth Amendment rights of Plaintiffs to be free from
22 unwarranted inferference with their familial relationship with Decedent.
23 58. The aforementioned actions of SMITH and RIOS-VEGA, along with the
24 undiscovered conduct, shock the conscience, in that they acted with deliberate
25 indifference to the constitutional rights of the Decedent and Plaintiffs with purpose to
26 harm unrelated to any legitimate law enforcement objective.
27 59. Defendants SMITH and RIOS-VEGA, acting under color of state law,
28 thus violated the Fourteenth Amendment rights of Decedent and Plaintiffs.
12
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Case 2:24-cv-09212-AH-PVC Document 36 Filed 04/11/25 Page 13 of 27 Page ID
#:312

1 60. As a direct and proximate cause of the actions of SMITH and RIOS-
2 VEGA, Plaintiffs suffered extreme and severe mental anguish and pain and have been
3 injured in mind and body. Plaintiffs have also been deprived of the life-long love,
4 companishionship, comfort, support, society, care, and sustenance of Decedent, and
5 will continue to be so deprived for the remainder of their natural lives. Plaintiffs also
6 claiming funeral and burial expenses and loss of financial support.
7 61. As a result of the conduct of SMITH and RIOS-VEGA, they are liable for
8 Decedent’s injuries because they were integral participants in the denial of due process.
9 62. The conduct of SMITH and RIOS-VEGA was willful, wanton, malicious,
10 and done with reckless disregard for the rights and safety of Decedent and therefore
11 warrants the imposition of exemplary and punitive damages as to Defendants SMITH
12 and RIOS-VEGA.
13 63. Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and seek wrongful death damages
14 under this claim for for the interference with Plaintiffs’ familial relationship with
15 Decedent.
16 64. Plaintiffs also seek attorney’s fees under this claim.
17 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
18 Muncipal Liability for Unconstitutional Custom or Policy (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
19 By CYNTHIA MEZA and CHRISTOPHER MEZA against Defendants CITY
20 and DOE SUPERVISORS
21 65. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1
22 through 64 of this First Amended Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully
23 set forth herein.
24 66. On information and belief, the CITY made a formal decision that the
25 shooting of Decedent was found to be “within policy” of the CITY’s Police
26 Department, notwithstanding that Decedent was not an imminent threat to SMITH or
27 RIOS-VEGA at the moment he was shot by SMITH and RIOS-VEGA. This manifests
28 a deliberate indifference to the civil rights of the residents of the CITY.
13
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Case 2:24-cv-09212-AH-PVC Document 36 Filed 04/11/25 Page 14 of 27 Page ID
#:313

1 67. Defendants CITY, DOE SUPERVISORS, and CITY executives, ratified,

2 acquiesced, and condoned the shooting of Decedent by SMITH and RIOS-VEGA.
3 68. On information and belief, SMITH and RIOS-VEGA, were not
4 disciplined, and were not given additional training, after the shooting of Decedent,
5 which evidences ratification and acquiescence in the shooting of Decedent by SMITH
6 and RIOS-VEGA.
7 69. On and for some time prior to July 31, 2024, and continuing to the present
8 date, Defendants CITY and DOE SUPERVISORS, deprived Decedent of the rights
9 and liberties secured to him by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
10 States Constitution, because said Defendants and their supervising and managerial
11 employees, acted with gross negligence and with reckless and deliberate indifference
12 to the rights and liberties of the public in general, and of Plaintiffs and Decedent, and
13 of persons in their class, situation and comparable position in particularly, knowingly
14 maintained, enforced, and applied an official recognized custom, policy, and practice
15 of:
16 a. Employing and retaining as police officers, and other personnel,
including SMITH and RIOS-VEGA, whom Defendants CITY,
17 and DOE SUPERVISORS, at all times material herein knew or
18 reasonably should have known had dangerous propensities of
abusing their authority and for mistreating citizens by failing to
19 follow written CITY Police Department policies.
20 b. Of inadequately supervising, training, controlling, assigning, and
disciplining CITY’s police officers, and other personnel, who
21
Defendants CITY, and DOE SUPERVISORS knew or in the
22 exercise of reasonable care should have known had the
aforementioned propensities and character traits.
23
c. By failing to adequately train officers, including SMITH and
24
RIOS-VEGA, and failing to institute appropriate policies,
25 regarding the use of excessive force, including deadly force;
26 d. By having and maintaining an unconstitutional policy, custom,
and practice of using excessive force, including deadly force,
27 which is also demonstrated by inadequate training regarding
28 these subjects. The policies, custom, and practices of CITY, and

14
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Case 2:24-cv-09212-AH-PVC Document 36 Filed 04/11/25 Page 15 of 27 Page ID
#:314

1 DOE SUPERVISORS were done with a deliberate indifference

to the individuals’ safety and rights; and
2
e. By maintaining grossly inadequate procedures for reporting,
3 supervising, investigating, reviewing, disciplining the intentional
misconduct of Defendant CITY police officers and/or, such as
4
SMITH and RIOS-VEGA;
5 f. By failing to discipline Defendant CITY police officers, such as
6 SMITH and RIOS-VEGA, for conduct such as unlawful
detention and excessive use of deadly force;
7
g. By ratifying the misconduct of Defendant CITY police officers,
8 such as SMITH and RIOS-VEGA, for conduct such as excessive
9 use of deadly force;
10 h. By failing to properly investigate incidents of excessive use of
deadly force by Defendant CITY police officers, such as SMITH
11 and RIOS-VEGA; and,
12 i. By failing to remove “problem” officers from patrol duties.
13 70. It is the policy, custom, and practice of Defendants CITY and DOE
14 SUPERVISORS to not objectively investigate complaints of previous incidents of
15 wrongful shootings, excessive use of deadly force, illegal arrests, falsification of police
16 reports, and instead, to officially claim that such incidents are justified and proper.
17 71. The policies, customs, and practices of Defendants CITY and DOE
18 SUPERVISORS does in fact encourage CITY police officers such as SMITH and
19 RIOS-VEGA, to believe that wrongful shootings, excessive use of deadly force against
20 residents, illegal arrests, fabrication of police reports, is permissible and will be
21 permitted by Defendants CITY and DOE SUPERVISORS. Defendants SMITH and
22 RIOS-VEGA were aware of the policies, customs, and practices of Defendants CITY
23 and DOE SUPERVISORS, SMITH and RIOS-VEGA used excessive deadly force
24 against Decedent. These policies and customs of the CITY was the driving force that
25 caused SMITH and RIOS-VEGA to shoot Decedent.
26 72. Other systemic deficiencies, policies, customs, and practices which
27 indicated, and continue to indicate, a deliberate indifference to the violations of the
28
15
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Case 2:24-cv-09212-AH-PVC Document 36 Filed 04/11/25 Page 16 of 27 Page ID
#:315

1 civil rights by the CITY police officers, such as SMITH and RIOS-VEGA, that
2 Defendants CITY and DOE SUPERVISORS were aware of, and has condoned and
3 ratified include:
4
b. Preparation of investigative reports designed to vindicate the use
5 of excessive use of force, regardless of whether such force was
6 justified;
c. Preparation of investigative reports which uncritically rely solely
7
on the word of police officers involved in the assault, battery,
8 excessive use of force incidents and which systematically fail to
credit testimony by non-police witnesses;
9
d. Preparation of investigative reports which omit factual
10 information and physical evidence which contradicts the
11 accounts of the officers involved;
12 e. Issuance of public statements exonerating officers involved in
such incidents prior to the completion of investigations of the
13 excessive use of force;
14 f. Failure to objectively and independently review investigative
15 reports by responsible superior officers for accuracy or
completeness and acceptance of conclusions which are
16 unwarranted by the evidence of the wrongful shooting, assault,
17 excessive use of deadly force, or which contradict such evidence.

18 72. By reason of the aforementioned policies and practices of Defendants

19 CITY and DOE SUPERVISORS, Decedent was severely injured and subjected to pain
20 and suffering and lost his life.
21 73. Defendants CITY and DOE SUPERVISORS, together with various other
22 officials, whether named or unnamed, had either actual or constructive knowledge of
23 the deficient policies, practices and customs alleged in the paragraphs above. Despite
24 having knowledge as stated above these defendants condoned, tolerated and through
25 actions and inactions thereby ratified such policies. Said defendants also acted with
26 deliberate indifference to the foreseeable effects and consequences of these policies
27 with respect to the constitutional rights of Decedent, and other individuals similarly
28 situated.
16
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Case 2:24-cv-09212-AH-PVC Document 36 Filed 04/11/25 Page 17 of 27 Page ID
#:316

1 74. By perpetrating, sanctioning, tolerating and ratifying the outrageous

2 conduct and other wrongful acts, Defendants CITY and DOE SUPERVISORS, acted
3 with an intentional, reckless, and callous disregard for the rights for the life of
4 Decedent, and Decedent’s and Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. Defendants CITY and
5 DOE SUPERVISORS, each of their actions were willful, wanton, oppressive,
6 malicious, fraudulent, and extremely offensive and unconscionable to any person of
7 normal sensibilities.
8 75. Furthermore, the policies, practices, and customs implemented and
9 maintained and still tolerated by Defendants CITY and DOE SUPERVISORS were
10 affirmatively linked to and were significantly influential force behind the injuries of
11 Decedent and Plaintiffs.
12 76. By reason of the aforementioned acts and omissions of Defendants CITY
13 and DOE SUPERVISORS, Plaintiffs were caused to incur funeral and related burial
14 expenses, and loss of financial support.
15 77. By reason of the aforementioned acts and omissions of Defendants CITY
16 and DOE SUPERVISORS, Plaintiffs have suffered loss of love, companionship,
17 affection, comfort, care, society, and future support.
18 78. Accordingly, Defendants CITY and DOE SUPERVISORS each are liable
19 to Plaintiffs for compensatory damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
20 79. Plaintiffs CYNTHIA MEZA and CHRISTOPHER MEZA bring this
21 claim both individually and as successors-in-interest to Decedent and seek both
22 survival and wrongful death damages.
23 80. Plaintiffs also seek statutory attorney fees under this claim.
24
25
26
27 //
28 //
17
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Case 2:24-cv-09212-AH-PVC Document 36 Filed 04/11/25 Page 18 of 27 Page ID
#:317

1 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2 Municipal Liability – Failure to Train (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
3 By CYNTHIA MEZA and CHRISTOPHER MEZA against Defendants CITY
4 and DOE SUPERVISORS
5 81. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1
6 through 80 of this First Amended Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully
7 set forth herein.
8 82. Defendants SMITH and RIOS-VEGA acted under color of law. The acts
9 of said Defendants deprived Decedent and Plaintiff of their particular rights under the
10 United States Constitution.
11 83. The training policies of Defendants CITY and DOE SUPERVISORS
12 were not adequate to train its police officers to handle the usual and recurring situations
13 with which they must deal.
14 84. Defendants CITY and DOE SUPERVISORS were deliberately
15 indifferent to the obvious consequences of its failure to train its officers adequately.
16 85. The negligent and unjustified use of force by the said Defendants SMITH
17 and RIOS-VEGA was a result of the negligent training by the Defendants CITY and
18 DOE SUPERVISORS, who failed to train CITY police officers and as to proper police
19 tactics, proper use of force, proper use of deadly force, and proper detention and arrest
20 procedures. The Defendants CITY and DOE SUPERVISORS were responsible for the
21 training of CITY police officers to ensure that the actions, procedures, and practices
22 of said Defendants complied with Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST)
23 training standards regarding proper police tactics, and proper use of deadly force.
24 86. The Defendants CITY and DOE SUPERVISORS negligently failed to
25 train CITY police officers to comply with POST training standards regarding proper
26 police tactics, proper use of force, proper use of deadly force, and proper detention and
27 arrest procedures. POST was established by the California Legislature in 1959 to set
28 minimum training standards for California peace officers. The training policies of
18
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Case 2:24-cv-09212-AH-PVC Document 36 Filed 04/11/25 Page 19 of 27 Page ID
#:318

1 CITY were not adequate to train its peace officers to handle the usual and recurring
2 situations with residents that said Defendants have contact with.
3 87. The training policies of the CITY were deficient in the following ways:
4 a. The CITY failed to properly train CITY police officers, so that
5 officers do not escalate their interactions with residents and do
not overreact and resort to use of deadly force when the use of
6 force was not necessary.
7
b. The CITY failed to properly train CITY police officers, so that
8 Defendants do not permit fear to reach the point of becoming
9 unreasonable fear, and not objectively reasonable, which would
result in the use of force to cause that would cause the death of
10 residents, such as Decedent. This was a part of the CITY’s
11 negligent failure to train said Defendants to properly and
adequately assess the need to use force against Decedent.
12
c. The CITY failed to properly train CITY failed to properly train
13
CITY police officers, such as said Defendants, in proper police
14 tactics, such as situational awareness so that police officers do
not utilize negligent tactics, such as said Defendants herein.
15
Because of this lack of proper training by the CITY, the
16 Defendants SMITH and RIOS-VEGA, did not use proper police
tactics in handling of the contact with Decedent, and instead used
17
defective police tactics, including the lack of a situational
18 awareness by the said Defendants. These defective tactics
resulted in the death of Decedent.
19
20 d. The CITY failed to properly train its police officers, such as
Defendants herein, would be trained in the importance of
21 effective communication prior to using force.
22
e. Because of the lack of proper training by the CITY, said
23 Defendants did not use effective communication prior to and
during the use of force against Decedent. The ineffective
24
communication of information by said Defendants prior to, and
25 during the incident, resulted in the death of Decedent.
26
88. The failure of Defendants CITY to provide adequate training caused the
27
deprivation of Decedent’s and Plaintiffs’ rights by said Defendants; that is, Defendant
28
19
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Case 2:24-cv-09212-AH-PVC Document 36 Filed 04/11/25 Page 20 of 27 Page ID
#:319

1 CITY’s failure to train is so closely related to the deprivation of the Decedent’s and
2 Plaintiffs’ rights as to be the moving force that caused the ultimate injury.
3 89. By failing to provide adequate training to CITY police officers, including
4 SMITH, RIOS-VEGA, and DOE SUPERVISORS, acted with an intentional, reckless,
5 and callous disregard for the life of Decedent’s and Decedent’s and Plaintiffs’
6 constitutional rights. Defendants and DOES 3-10, each of their actions were willful,
7 wanton, oppressive, malicious, fraudulent, and extremely offensive and
8 unconscionable to any person of normal sensibilities.
9 90. By reason of the acts and omissions of Defendants, Plaintiffs were caused
10 to incur funeral and related burial expenses, and loss of financial support.
11 91. By reason of the aforementioned acts and omissions, the Plaintiffs have
12 suffered loss of the love, companionship, affection, comfort, care, society, training,
13 guidance, and moral support of Decedent.
14 92. Accordingly, Defendants CITY and DOE SUPERVISORS, each are
15 liable to the Plaintiff for compensatory damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
16 93. Plaintiffs CYNTHIA MEZA and CHRISTOPHER MEZA bring this
17 claim both individually and as successors-in-interest to Decedent and seek both
18 survival and wrongful death damages.
19 94. Plaintiffs also seek statutory attorney fees under this claim.
20 SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
21 Battery (Cal. Govt. Code § 820 and California Common Law)
22 (Wrongful Death)
23 By CYNTHIA MEZA and CHRISTOPHER MEZA against all Defendants
24 95. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1
25 through 94 of this First Amended Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully
26 set forth herein.
27 96. Defendants SMITH and RIOS-VEGA, while working as police officers
28 for the CITY Police Department and acting within the course and scope of their duties,
20
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Case 2:24-cv-09212-AH-PVC Document 36 Filed 04/11/25 Page 21 of 27 Page ID
#:320

1 intentionally shot Decedent several times. Defendants SMITH and RIOS-VEGA had
2 no legal justification for using deadly force against Decedent and said Defendants’ use
3 of force while carrying out their officer duties was an unreasonable use of force,
4 especially since Decedent was not an imminent threat to SMITH and RIOS-VEGA, or
5 anyone else. Further, Decedent was unarmed at the time of the shooting. The use of
6 deadly force was also unreasonable because there were clearly less lethal options
7 available. As a result of the actions of SMITH and RIOS-VEGA, Decedent suffered
8 severe mental and physical pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life and ultimately
9 died from his injuries and lost learning capacity.
10 97. CITY is vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of SMITH and RIOS-
11 VEGA pursuant to section 815.2(a) of the California Government Code, which
12 provides that a public entity is liable for the injuries caused by its employees within
13 the scope of the employment if the employee’s act would subject him or her to liability.
14 98. The conduct of SMITH and RIOS-VEGA was malicious, wanton,
15 oppressive, and accomplished with a conscious disregard for the rights of Plaintiffs
16 and Decedent, entitling Plaintiffs, individually and as successors-in-interest to
17 Decedent, to an award of exemplary and punitive damages.
18 99. Plaintiffs CYNTHIA MEZA and CHRISTOPHER MEZA bring this
19 claim both individually and as successors-in-interest to Decedent and seek both
20 survival and wrongful death damages. Plaintiffs seek such survival damages pursuant
21 to Section 377.34 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.
22 SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
23 Negligence (Wrongful Death)
24 (Cal. Govt. Code § 820 and California Common Law)
25 By CYNTHIA MEZA and CHRISTOPHER MEZA against all Defendants
26 100. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1
27 through 99 of this First Amended Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully
28 set forth herein.
21
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Case 2:24-cv-09212-AH-PVC Document 36 Filed 04/11/25 Page 22 of 27 Page ID
#:321

1 101. The actions and inactions of the Defendants were negligent, including
2 but not limited to:
3
4 a. The failure to properly and adequately train employees including
SMITH and RIOS-VEGA with regard to the use of force,
5 including deadly force;
6 b. The failure to properly and adequately assess the need to detain,
7 arrest, and use force, including deadly force against Decedent;
8 c. The negligent tactics and handling of the situation with
9 Decedent, including pre-shooting negligence;

10 d. The negligent detention, arrest, and use of force, including

deadly force, against Decedent;
11
12 e. The failure to provide and or summons prompt medical care to
Decedent;
13
f. Shooting an unarmed individual;
14
15 g. The failure to give a verbal warning or any kind of command
prior to shooting;
16
h. And failure to properly train and supervise employees, both
17
professional and non-professional, including SMITH and RIOS-
18 VEGA.
19 102. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct as alleged above,
20 and other undiscovered negligent conduct, Decedent was caused suffer extreme mental
21 and physical pain and suffering and ultimately died and lost earning capacity. Also as
22 a direct and proximate result of defendants’ conduct as alleged above, Plaintiffs
23 suffered extreme and severe mental anguish and pain and have been injured in mind
24 and body. Plaintiffs have also been deprived of the life-long love, companionship,
25 comfort, support, society, care, and sustenance of Decedent, and will continue to be so
26 deprived for the remainder of their natural lives. Plaintiffs also claiming funeral and
27 burial expenses and loss of financial support.
28
22
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Case 2:24-cv-09212-AH-PVC Document 36 Filed 04/11/25 Page 23 of 27 Page ID
#:322

1 103. Defendant CITY is vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of SMITH and
2 RIOS-VEGA pursuant to section 815.2(a) of the California Government Code, which
3 provides that a public entity is liable for the injuries caused by its employees within
4 the scope of the employment if the employee’s act would subject him or her to liability.
5 104. Plaintiffs CYNTHIA MEZA and CHRISTOPHER MEZA bring this
6 claim individually and as successors-in-interest to Decedent and seek both survival
7 and wrongful death damages. Plaintiffs seek such survival damages pursuant to
8 Section 377.34 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.
9 EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
10 Violation of Bane Act (Cal. Civil Code § 52.1)
11 By CYNTHIA MEZA and CHRISTOPHER MEZA against all Defendants
12 105. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1
13 through 104 of this First Amended Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully
14 set forth herein.
15 106. California Civil Code section 52.1 (the Bane Act), prohibits any person
16 from interfering with another person’s exercise or enjoyment of his constitutional
17 rights by threats, intimidation, or coercion (or by the use of unconstitutionally
18 excessive force).
19 107. Any individual whose exercise or enjoyment of rights secured by the
20 Constitution or laws of this state, has been interfered with, as described in subdivision
21 (a), may institute and prosecute in his name and on his own behalf a civil action for
22 damages, including but not limited to, damages under Section 52, injunctive relief, and
23 other appropriate equitable relief to protect the peaceable exercise or enjoyment of the
24 rights secured, including appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate a
25 pattern or practice of conduct as described in subdivision (a).
26 108. The Bane Act, the California Constitution and California common law
27 prohibit the use of excessive force by law enforcement. Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1(b)
28 authorizes a private right of action and permits survival actions for such claims. See
23
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Case 2:24-cv-09212-AH-PVC Document 36 Filed 04/11/25 Page 24 of 27 Page ID
#:323

1 Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.App.4th 141, 144 (1995). “[A]
2 successful claim for excessive force under the Fourth Amendment provides the basis
3 for a successful claim under § 52.1.” Chaudhry v. City of South Gate, 751 F.3d 1096,
4 1105-06 (9th Cir. 2014); citing Cameron v. Craig, 713 F.3d 1012, 1022 (9th Cir.2013)
5 (“[T]he elements of the excessive force claim under § 52.1 are the same as under §
6 1983.”); Bender v. County. of L.A., 217 Cal.App.4th 968, 976 (2013) (“an unlawful
7 [seizure]—when accompanied by unnecessary, deliberate and excessive force—is []
8 within the protection of the Bane Act”). Defendants SMITH and RIOS-VEGA violated
9 DECEDENT’s constitutional rights by using excessive force, whose acts of
10 unreasonable force were done intentionally, and with a reckless disregard for his
11 constitutional rights and for his life. Reese v. canty. of Sacramento, 888 F.3d 1030,
12 1044-1045 (9th Cir. 2018)
13 109. Defendants SMITH’s and RIOS-VEGA’s use of deadly force was
14 excessive and unreasonable under the circumstances, especially since Decedent was
15 unarmed when he was fatally shot. Further, the involved officers did not give a verbal
16 warning before fatally shooting Decedent, despite being feasible to do so. Defendants’
17 actions thus deprived Decedent of his right to be free from unreasonable searches and
18 seizures under the Fourth Amendment and applied to state actors by the Fourteenth
19 Amendment. The conduct of Defendants SMITH and RIOS-VEGA was a substantial
20 factor in causing the harm, losses, injuries, and damages of Plaintiff.
21 110. Defendants SMITH and RIOS-VEGA intentionally violated Decedent’s
22 rights under § 1983 by using excessive deadly force against Decedent, including but
23 not limited to, shooting the unarmed Decedent without warning, numerous times.
24 Further, these acts by Defendants SMITH and RIOS-VEGA demonstrate that they had
25 a reckless disregard for Decedent’s constitutional rights.
26 111. At the time of the shooting Decedent did not pose an immediate threat of
27 death or serious bodily injury and Decedent never verbally threatened anyone prior to
28 the shooting. There is direct and circumstantial evidence that Defendants SMITH and
24
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Case 2:24-cv-09212-AH-PVC Document 36 Filed 04/11/25 Page 25 of 27 Page ID
#:324

1 RIOS-VEGA intentionally violated Decedent’s rights under §1983 by unlawfully

2 detaining him, by attempting to unlawfully arrest him and by fatally shooting Decedent
3 multiple times.
4 112. Defendants SMITH and RIOS-VEGA, while working as police officers
5 for the CITY Police Department, and acting within the course and cope of their duties,
6 interfered with or attempted to interfere with the rights of Decedent to be free from
7 unreasonable searches and seizures, to equal protection of the laws, to access to the
8 courts, and to be free from state actions that shock the conscience, by threatning or
9 committing acts involving violence, threats, coercsion, or intimidation.
10 113. Decedent was caused to suffer extreme mental and physical pain and
11 suffering and ultimately died and lost earning capacity. Plaintiffs have also been
12 deprived of the life-long love, companionship, comfort, support, society, care, and
13 sustenance of Decedent, and will continue to be so deprived for the remainder of their
14 natural lives. Plaintiffs also claim funeral and burial expenses and loss of financial
15 support.
16 114. The conduct of SMITH, RIOS-VEGA, and DOES 3-10 was a substantial
17 factor in causing the harms, losses, injuries and damages of Decedent and Plaintiffs.
18 115. Defendants CITY are vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of SMITH,
19 RIOS-VEGA, and DOES 3-10 pursuant to section 815.2(a) of the California
20 Government Code, which provides that a public entity is liable for the injuries caused
21 by its employees within the scope of the employment if the employee’s act would
22 subject him or her to liability.
23 116. The conduct of SMITH, RIOS-VEGA, and DOES 3-10 was malicious,
24 wanton, oppressive, and accomplished with a conscious disregard for the rights of
25 Decedent entitling Plaintiff to an award of exemplary and punitive damages.
26 117. Plaintiffs bring this claim as successors-in-interest to the Decedent, and
27 seek survival damages for the violation of Decedent’s rights. Plaintiffs seek such
28
25
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Case 2:24-cv-09212-AH-PVC Document 36 Filed 04/11/25 Page 26 of 27 Page ID
#:325

1 survival damages pursuant to Section 377.34 of the California Code of Civil

2 Procedure.
3 118. Plaintiffs also seek costs and attorney fees under this claim.
4 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
5 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request entry of judgment in his favor and against
6 Defendants CITY, NORI SMITH, JASSON RIOS-VEGA and DOES 3-10, inclusive,
7 as follows:
8 a. For compensatory damages, including both survival and wrongful
death damages under federal and state law, in the amount to be
9 proven at trial;
10 b. For other general damages in an amount according to proof at trial;
11 c. For other non-economic damages in an amount according to proof
at trial;
12
d. For other special damages in an amount according to proof at trial;
13
e. For punitive damages against the individual defendants, NORI
14 SMITH and JASSON RIOS-VEGA in an amount to be proven at
15 trial;
f. Attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988;
16
g. Attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1(h)
17
h. For interest;
18
i. For reasonable costs of this suit; and
19
j. For such further other relief as the Court may deem just, proper,
20 and appropriate.
21
DATED: April 11, 2025 CARRILLO LAW FIRM, LLP
22
23
By: ____________________________
24 LUIS A. CARRILLO
25 MICHAEL S. CARRILLO
DOMINIQUE L. BOUBION
26 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
27
//
28
26
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Case 2:24-cv-09212-AH-PVC Document 36 Filed 04/11/25 Page 27 of 27 Page ID
#:326

1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2
The Plaintiffs named herein hereby demand a trial by jury.
3
4
5 DATED: April 11, 2025 CARRILLO LAW FIRM, LLP
6
7 By: ____________________________
8 LUIS A. CARRILLO
MICHAEL S. CARRILLO
9 DOMINIQUE L. BOUBION
10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
27
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES