Escamilla V Iredale Complaint For Damages and Exhibits 1 Through 7

Daniel Escamilla
1 1679 E. Orangethorpe Ave #117

Atwood, CA 92811
2 Tel: (714) 210-3500
Fax: (714) 783-3016
3 Dan@Escamilla.com
4 PLAINTIFF IN PROPRIA PERSONA
5
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
10
DANIEL ESCAMILLA, ) Case No.
11 )
)
12 ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Plaintiffs, )
13 ) AND EXHIBITS 1 THROUGH 7
vs. )
14 )
)
15
EUGENE G. IREDALE, JULIA YOO, ))
16 DONALD GREEN and DOES 1 through )
20 inclusive, )
17 )
)
18 )
Defendants. )
19
20
21 Plaintiff DANIEL ESCAMILLA, alleges as follows:
22 1. Plaintiff DANIEL ESCAMILLA (“Plaintiff”), is at all times herein a
23 resident of Orange County, California.
24 2. Defendant, EUGENE G. IREDALE (“IREDALE”) is a resident of
25 San Diego County, California and an attorney licensed by the State Bar of
26 California, SBN #75292.
27 3. Defendant, JULIA YOO (“YOO”) is a resident of San Diego County,
28 California and an attorney licensed by the State Bar of California, SBN #231153.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1
1 4. Defendant, DONALD GREEN (“GREEN”) is a resident of San
2 Diego County, California and an attorney licensed by the State Bar of California,
3 SBN #225171.
4 5. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate,
5 associate or otherwise of the Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 20,
6 inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff who therefore sue said Defendants by such
7 fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege their true names and
8 capacities when the same is ascertained.
9 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that each
10 of the fictitiously named Defendant(s) is/are responsible in some actionable
11 manner for the occurrences herein alleged and that Plaintiff’s damages as alleged
12 were proximately caused by said Defendants’ conduct.
13 7. Plaintiff is informed and believe and on that basis alleges that at all
14 times mentioned herein, each Defendant was the agent/employee/co-venturer of
15 each other and Defendants, and each of them, acted within the course and scope of
16 his or her agency and/or employment relationship.
17 8. On December 8, 2016, Defendants IREDALE, YOO and GREEN,
18 filed a complaint for damages (Exhibit 1) against Plaintiff in the United States
19 District Court Southern District of California, naming Plaintiff in seven (7) of the
20 fourteen (14) causes of action, including wrongful death.
21 9. The underlying lawsuit arose out of Plaintiff’s actions as a California
22 certified fugitive recovery agent, notifying police officers with the San Diego
23 Police Department of credible “officer safety information” relating to a potentially
24 armed and dangerous out-of-state fugitives, known to be in the Pacific Beach area.
25 10. On December 22, 2016, Plaintiff wrote a five (5) page letter to
26 Defendants IREDALE, YOO and GREEN (Exhibit 2) warning of the frivolous
27 nature of the federal lawsuit brought against him and, specifically, “that the claims
28 brought against [ESCAMILLA] are wholly without merit and are not warranted

2
1 under existing law.” Plaintiff went on to advise the Defendants in this litigation,
2 “[b]ased on the lack of legal and factual merit of [the attorneys’] claims against
3 [ESCAMILLA], the undersigned is demanding immediate dismissal as a
4 defendant in this action.” Plaintiff offered that “[t]he dismissal may be without
5 prejudice, leaving [the attorneys] with the option of re-naming [ESCAMILLA as
6 a] defendant in the future if evidence is later discovered which supports a valid
7 claim against [ESCAMILLA] under California law.” Defendants took no action to
8 dismiss the underlying litigation against this Plaintiff, despite the stipulated
9 dismissal being offered without prejudice.
10 11. Defendants subsequently filed a First Amended Complaint (Exhibit
11 4), a Second Amended Complaint (Exhibit 5), and a Third Amended Complaint
12 (Exhibit 6), ultimately swapping the named Plaintiffs in the underlying litigation
13 from a woman who had fraudulently claimed to be the decedent’s wife for the
14 decedent’s biological son who, Plaintiff is informed and believes, had no
15 established relationship with the decedent.
16 12. During the ensuing four (4) years, Plaintiff, who holds a law degree
17 but is not a licensed attorney, was representing himself in the underlying litigation
18 and suffered economic injury as a result, including but not limited to lost earnings
19 and loss of anticipated profits.
20 13. Plaintiff was forced to spend an incredible amount of time, money
21 and effort defending himself from Defendants’ frivolous litigation by researching,
22 drafting and filing discovery responses and court pleadings and attending
23 depositions and court hearings far from his home. A copy of the docket of the
24 underlying litigation in the United States District Court is attached as Exhibit 3.
25 14. Plaintiff has also suffered loss of anticipated profits in his career as a
26 fugitive recovery agent as a result of the malicious wrongful death claim brought
27 against him by Defendants. Plaintiff was in an established business as a fugitive
28 recovery agent and routinely contracted with bail bond in California and

3
1 throughout the United States. The fact that a group of experienced civil rights
2 attorneys filed a federal wrongful death lawsuit against this plaintiff and this
3 plaintiff’s bail agent-client, was enough to dissuade bail agents both in California
4 and throughout the United States to continue to hire Plaintiff, and for members of
5 professional organizations to avoid using Plaintiff as a speaker at annual bail
6 industry conventions and other related events, all causing Plaintiff economic
7 harm. The impact of the wrongful litigation to Plaintiff’s livelihood was
8 particularly severe since it became well known in the industry that the tortious
9 conduct of Plaintiff as alleged in the wrongful litigation, caused his bail agent
10 client to incur many tens of thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees in the defense
11 of the lawsuit brought by Defendants.
12 15. More than four (4) years later, on December 31, 2020, the personal
13 and professional ordeal of being sued for wrongful death in federal court finally
14 ended for Plaintiff when the United States District Court granted this plaintiff’s
15 motion for summary judgment, dismissing this plaintiff from the federal lawsuit
16 wrongfully brought by Defendants against Plaintiff. (Order attached as Exhibit 7.)
17 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
18 MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
19 (Against all Defendants)
20 16. Plaintiff hereby reincorporates by reference each and every allegation
21 contained in paragraphs 1 through 1-15 as if fully set forth herein.
22 17. Defendants, and each of them, initiated and/or maintained United
23 States District Court complaints (Exhibits 1, 4, 5 and 6) and federal litigation
24 against Plaintiff with malice based on Defendants, and each of them, having
25 prosecuted and/or maintained the United States District Court action against
26 Plaintiff without probable cause.
27 18. Defendants ought to have conducted an adequate prefiling inquiry
28 into both the facts and the law to satisfy the affirmative duty imposed by Federal

4
1 Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 11. No prudent attorney, after such investigation of
2 facts and research of law as the circumstances reasonably warranted, would have
3 considered the underlying action to be tenable on the theories advanced by
4 Defendants IREDALE, YOO and GREEN.
5 19. Stated another way, the underlying lawsuit brought by Defendants
6 IREDALE, YOO and GREEN herein was one that would lead any reasonable
7 attorney to agree that the action was totally and completely without merit. A
8 reasonable lawyer would not regard the underlying lawsuit as tenable.
9 20. Defendants IREDALE, YOO and GREEN, and each of them,
10 instituted and/or maintained the underlying action against Plaintiff knowing that
11 Plaintiff would value and seek to protect his reputation in the community and in
12 the profession of the bail industry and, hopefully, provide a quick and easy source
13 of monetary recovery to avoid the stigma of being blamed for a homicide and sued
14 in federal court for the wrongful death of a person.
15 21. Undisputed evidence establishes that there was no objectively
16 reasonable basis for Defendants IREDALE, YOO and GREEN, and each of them,
17 to institute and/or maintain the underlying action against Plaintiff herein and that
18 the Defendants’ claims against this Plaintiff, including but not limited to an
19 alleged violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleged conspiracy under § 1983, were
20 not plausible under governing statutory or common law authority given the facts
21 of the underlying case.
22 22. Lawyers licensed by the State of California and admitted to practice
23 in federal court are charged with the responsibility of acquiring a reasonable
24 understanding of the law governing the claims to be alleged.
25 23. Defendants IREDALE, YOO and GREEN, and each of them, knew
26 or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, that legal theories
27 advanced in the complaint as against Plaintiff herein, were not legally tenable as
28 to each and every of the legal claims made against this Plaintiff in the underlying

5
1 complaints. Despite this, each of these attorneys alleged in the original and
2 amended complaints, and continued to prosecute against this Plaintiff, objectively
3 untenable claims.
5 or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, that none of the
6 claims contained in the complaints could be substantiated by competent evidence.
8 or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, that there was a
9 complete absence of supporting factual evidence as to allegations made by the
10 attorneys, against Plaintiff, in the underlying complaints.
11 26. Despite the untenability of the claims, the lack of competent evidence
12 to substantiate the claims and the complete absence of evidence to support
13 allegations made in the complaints, Defendants IREDALE, YOO and GREEN,
14 and each of them, filed and continued to prosecute, the underlying federal claims
15 against Plaintiff in this action, in some cases manufacturing false statements of
16 facts in an attempt to establish their claims.
17 27. The lawsuit previously brought against this Plaintiff, by Defendants
18 IREDALE, YOO and GREEN, and each of them, was ultimately terminated on
19 the merits and in favor of this plaintiff by the United States District Court granting
20 this plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on December 31, 2020. (See Exhibit
21 7.)
22 28. Plaintiff was harmed by the actions of each of the Defendants
23 IREDALE, YOO and GREEN as described herein.
24 29. Each of Defendants’ conduct as set forth above was a substantial
25 factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm.
26 30. As a direct and proximate result of each and every Defendants’
27 malicious prosecution, Plaintiff has suffered damages to be proven at trial
28 including, but not limited to, the cost of defending the prior action including the

6
1 economic damages relating to loss of time and opportunity, injury to Plaintiff’s
2 reputation or impairment of social and business standing in the community, and
3 mental or emotional distress.
4 31. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ malicious
5 prosecution of Plaintiff in the underlying lawsuit for the wrongful death of Eugene
6 Smith, Plaintiff suffered unique or particular injuries over and above the type of
7 injuries commonly incident to being a defendant in a frivolous lawsuit.
8 Specifically, in the underlying federal lawsuit, Plaintiff was falsely accused of
9 being the root cause of the police shooting death of an un-armed person and, as a
10 result, has suffered the stigma of being blamed for the death.
11 32. Each of Defendants, IREDALE, YOO and GREEN engaged in
12 actions, as set forth herein, which were done maliciously, recklessly and in
13 conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s rights entitling Plaintiff to exemplary and
14 punitive damages as against each of these defendants and to be proven at trial.
15 PRAYER
16 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court enter a
17 Judgment for:
18 (1) General Damages;
19 (2) Special Damages;
20 (3) Exemplary and Punitive Damages;
21 (4) that Plaintiff recover his costs of suit herein incurred;
22 (5) that Plaintiff recover his attorney’s fees;
23 (6) Interest; and
24 (7) such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
25 DATED: December 6, 2021
26
27 Plaintiff in Propria Persona
28

7
EXHIBIT 1
Case 3:16-cv-02989-WQH-MSB Document 1 Filed 12/08/16 PageID.1 Page 1 of 28
1 DONALD A. GREEN (SBN 225171)

LAW OFFICES OF DONALD A. GREEN, PC
2 1902 WRIGHT PL, 2ND FL.
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
3 TEL: (760) 431-5290  FACSIMILE (760) 268-9889
4 EUGENE G. IREDALE (SBN 75292)
JULIA YOO (SBN 231153)
5 IREDALE & YOO, APC
6 105 W. “F” ST., 4TH FL.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101-6087
7 TEL: (619) 233-1525  FACSIMILE (619) 233-3221
8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ESTATE OF TIMOTHY GENE SMITH et al.

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
ESTATE OF TIMOTHY GENE SMITH, Case No.: '16CV2989 WQHMDD
11 deceased, by his successor in interest,
JANIE RICHELLE SANDERS, JANIE COMPLAINT
12 RICHELLE SANDERS, SANDY LYNN 1. VIOLATION OF THE
13 SIMMONS, and WYATT ALLEN FOURTH AMENDMENT
GUNNER SMITH as individuals, (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
14 2. VIOLATION OF THE
Plaintiffs, FOURTEENTH
15 v. AMENDMENT
(42 U.S.C. § 1983)
16 CITY OF SAN DIEGO, , SHELLEY 3. MONELL VIOLATION
ZIMMERMAN and SCOTT HOLSLAG, (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
17 as individuals and on behalf of CITY OF 4. FAILURE TO TRAIN
SAN DIEGO; NATALIE ANN MACEY 5. FAILURE TO SUPERVISE
18 d/b/a MACEY BAIL BONDS, as an AND DISCIPLINE
individual; LEGAL SERVICE BUREAU, 6. VIOLATION OF CIVIL
19 INC. d/b/a GLOBAL FUGITIVE RIGHTS
RECOVERY, a California domestic (CAL. CIV.CODE § 52.1)
20 corporation; and DAN ESCAMILLA, as 7. CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE
an individual and on behalf of LEGAL CIVIL RIGHTS
21 SERVICE BUREAU, INC.; LELAND
CHAPMAN BAIL BOND CO. INC., a 8. NEGLIGENCE
22 Colorado corporation; LBC, INC., a 9. BATTERY
Hawaii corporation; DA KINE BAIL 10.WRONGFUL DEATH
23 BONDS, INC. a Hawaii corporation; (CAL.CIV.PROC. § 377.60)
KAMA AINA BAIL BONDS, INC. a 11.SURVIVAL ACTION
24 Hawaii Corporation; and LELAND B. (CAL.CIV.PROC. § 377.30)
CHAPMAN, as an individual and on 12. INTENTIONAL
25 behalf of LELAND CHAPMAN BAIL INFLICTION OF
BOND CO. INC., LBC, INC., DA KINE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
26 BAIL BONDS, INC., and KAMA AINA 13. DEFAMATION
BAIL BONDS, INC.; and DOES 1-50, 14. FALSE LIGHT
27 inclusive,
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
28 Defendants.
1
COMPLAINT
1 Plaintiffs, ESTATE OF TIMOTHY GENE SMITH, by its successor in

2 interest JANIE RICHELLE SANDERS, JANIE RICHELLE SANDERS, SANDY
3 LYNN SIMMONS, and WYATT ALLEN GUNNER SMITH allege as follows:
4 I.
5 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6 1. Jurisdiction of this court arises under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1337,
7 1343(a), and 1367(a); and 42 U.S.C. §§.1983, 1985(3), 1986, and 1988.
8 2. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state law
9 claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
10 3. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue is proper in the Southern
11 District of California because the acts or omissions which form the basis of the
12 Plaintiff’s claims occurred in San Diego County, within the Southern District of
13 California.
14 4. The Estate is TIMOTHY GENE SMITH’s estate. Under Section
15 377.20 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, the Estate has standing to bring
16 claims for TIMOTHY GENE SMITH for the torts resulting in his death. For
17 jurisdictional purposes, and since TIMOTHY GENE SMITH’s death occurred in
18 California, the Estate resides in California.
19 5. Janie Sanders as the surviving spouse is the successor in interest of the
20 Estate of Timothy Gene Smith.
21 6. A substantial portion of the events giving rise to the claims alleged in
22 this complaint arose in San Diego County, California. Therefore, venue is proper
23 under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).
24 II.
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
25
7. Pursuant to section 910 of the California Government Code, Plaintiffs
26
timely filed administrative claims with the City of San Diego (“City”) on April 29,
27
2016. Their claims were denied by written letter on July 7, 2016.
28
2
COMPLAINT
1 8. Plaintiffs have exhausted all administrative remedies before filing this

2 instant action.
3 III.
4 PARTIES
5 9. The individual plaintiffs are natural persons, citizens, domiciliaries
6 and permanent residents of the State of Missouri.
7 10. Plaintiff JANIE RICHELLE SANDERS was for all relevant times
8 herein the legal spouse of plaintiff’s decedent TIMOTHY GENE SMITH.
9 11. Plaintiff WYATT ALLEN GUNNER SMTIH is the biological son of

10 plaintiff’s decedent TIMOTHY GENE SMITH.
11 12. Plaintiff SANDY LYNN SIMMONS is the biological mother of
12 plaintiff’s decedent TIMOTHY GENE SMITH.
13 13. Plaintiffs, each and all of them, bring this action as individuals on
14 their own behalf under both federal and California law. Plaintiff Janie Sanders
15 brings this action on behalf of the Estate of Timothy Gene Smith, deceased, in her
16 representative capacities as successor in interest of the Estate of Timothy Gene
17 Smith.
18 14. Defendant City of San Diego is a municipality within the State of
19 California and is the employer of Defendants SHELLEY ZIMMERMAN, SCOTT
20 HOLSLAG, and other unidentified police officers DOES 1 through 25. The
21 individual defendants performed all of the herein alleged acts for, and in the name
22 of, defendant City of San Diego.
23 15. At all times relevant hereto, defendants ZIMMERMAN, HOLSLAG,
24 and DOES 1 to 25 were, and still are, residents of the County of San Diego, State
25 of California, and were duly appointed and acting police officers for the City of
26 San Diego. They are sued individually and in their capacities as employees of the
27 City of San Diego.
28 16. Upon information and belief, defendant NATALIE ANN MACEY,

d/b/a MACEY BAIL BONDS (hereinafter “MACEY”), is a resident of the State of
3
COMPLAINT
1 Missouri, a citizen of the United States, and doing business throughout the United
2 States. Upon information and belief, MACEY BAIL BONDS was and has been for
3 all relevant times herein registered in the State of Missouri, Charter No.
4 X01275749, with its headquarters and principal place of business located at 114
5 W. North Man, Richmond, MO 64085.
6 17. Upon information and belief, and for all relevant times herein,
7 LEGAL SERVICE BUREAU, INC. (hereinafter “LEGAL SERVICE BUREAU”),
8 d/b/a GLOBAL FUGITIVE RECOVERY, was and is a California domestic
9 corporation registered with the California Secretary of State as Corporation No.
10 C2112580, with its headquarters and principal place of business located at 888 W.
11 Santa Ana Blvd., Suite 100, Santa Ana, CA 92701. Plaintiff alleges on information
12 and belief that defendant LEGAL SERVICES BUREAU, INC., d/b/a GLOBAL
13 FUGITIVE RECOVERY, does business as a bail bondsman and fugitive recovery
14 agent in the State of California.
15 18. Plaintiff alleges that defendant DAN ESCAMILLA (“ESCAMILLA”)
16 is an officer and director of defendant LEGAL SERVICES BUREAU, INC., d/b/a
17 GLOBAL FUGITIVE RECOVERY, and is a resident of the State of California,
18 County of Orange, and a citizen of the United States. Plaintiffs bring suit against
19 defendant ESCAMILLA as an individual and as a director of LEGAL SERVICE
20 BUREAU, INC., and DOES 26 to 35.
21 19. Upon information and belief, defendant LELAND CHAPMAN BAIL
22 BOND CO., INC. (“LELAND BAIL”) was and is for all relevant times mentioned
23 herein, a State of Colorado corporation with a registered headquarters and principal
24 place of business address of P.O. Box 10204, Colorado Springs, CO 80932.
25 Plaintiffs allege that LELAND BAIL was doing business in the State of California,
26 and throughout the United States, at the time of the incidents alleged herein.
27 20. Upon information and belief, LELAND BAIL was and is for all
28 relevant times mentioned herein a State of Hawaii registered corporation, having
4
COMPLAINT
1 Secretary of State file number of 218622 D1. Plaintiff alleges that the purpose of
2 defendant LELAND BAIL is “Acting Services for Reality Television” with the
3 agent for service identified as Leland Chapman, P.O. Box 1134, Kona, HI 96745.
4 Plaintiffs allege LELAND BAIL is and was doing business in the State of
5 California and, throughout the United States, at the time of the incidents alleged
6 herein.
7 21. Upon information and belief, defendant DA KINE BAIL BONDS,
8 INC. (hereinafter “DA KINE”) was and is for all relevant times mentioned herein,
9 a State of Hawaii corporation with headquarters and principal place of business at
10 1381 Queen Emma St., Honolulu, HI 96813. Plaintiffs allege that the purpose of
11 DA KINE is and was bail bond collection, doing business in the State of
12 California, and throughout the United States, at the time of the incidents alleged
13 herein.
14 22. Upon information and belief, defendant KAMA AINA BAIL
15 BONDS, INC. (hereinafter “KAMA’AINA”) was and is for all relevant times
16 mentioned herein, a State of Hawaii corporation, File Number 228303 D1, with
17 headquarters and principal place of business at 74-592 Hale Makai Place, Kailua-
18 Kona, HI 96740, having a website address of http://kamaainabailbonds.com/.
19 Plaintiffs allege that the purpose of KAMA’AINA is and was bail bond collection,
20 and that it was doing business in the State of California, and throughout the United
21 States, at the time of the incidents alleged herein. Plaintiff further alleges that
22 defendant LELAND CHAPMAN is the identified Agent for Service of Process of
23 KAMA’AINA BAIL BONDS, INC. with service addresses of P.O. Box 1134,
24 Kona, Hawaii 96745 and a mailing address of C/O FP Accounting, 1680 N. Vine
25 St., Suite 604, Los Angeles, CA 90028.
26 23. Plaintiff alleges that defendant LELAND CHAPMAN
27 (“CHAPMAN”) is an officer, director, and/or agent of defendants LELAND
28 CHAPMAN BAIL BOND CO., INC., LBC, INC., DA KINE BAIL BONDS,
5
COMPLAINT
1 INC., and KAMA’AINA BAIL BONDS, INC. and is a resident of the State of
2 Hawaii, and a citizen of the United States. Plaintiffs bring suit against defendant
3 CHAPMAN as an individual and -as an employee and officer of LELAND
4 CHAPMAN BAIL BOND CO., INC., LBC, INC., DA KINE BAIL BONDS,
5 INC., and KAMA’AINA BAIL BONDS, INC., and DOES 36 TO 50.
6 24. Defendants DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are sued under fictitious
7 names. Their true names and capacities are unknown to plaintiff. Plaintiff will
8 amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained.
9 Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allege that each of the
10 fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences
11 alleged in this complaint, and that Plaintiff’s claims alleged in this complaint were
12 proximately caused by such defendants.
13 25. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allege that each
14 named defendant, including DOES 1 through 50, was the agent, servant, employee,
15 or partner of each other defendant, and that each defendant was acting within the
16 course and scope of such agency, employment, partnership, or other business
17 relationship and with the consent or the ratification of each other in doing the
18 things alleged herein.
19 26. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allege that at all
20 times herein mentioned, -Does 1 through 50, and each of them, were residents
21 and/or doing business within the County of San Diego, State of California, within
22 this judicial district, and that defendants, and each of them, are responsible to
23 plaintiff pursuant to the causes of action set forth herein.
24 IV.
25 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
26 27. This is a claim for damages brought under state and federal law
27 against the CITY OF SAN DIEGO, SHELLEY ZIMMERMAN, SCOTT
28 HOLSLAG, NATALIE ANN MACEY, d/b/a MACEY BAIL BONDS, LEGAL

SERVICE BUREAU, INC., d/b/a GLOBAL FUGITIVE RECOVERY, DAN
6
COMPLAINT
1 ESCAMILLA, LELAND CHAPMAN BAIL BOND CO. INC., LBC, INC., DA

2 KINE BAIL BONDS, INC., KAMA AINA BAIL BONDS, INC. LELAND B.
3 CHAPMAN, and DOES 1-50, their officials, and employees for, state, and federal
4 law violations including violations of civil rights (42 USC § 1983), conspiracy to
5 violate civil rights (42 USC § 1985), and wrongful death (negligence and battery).
6 28. Plaintiffs JANIE RICHELLE SANDERS, SANDY LYNN
7 SIMMONS, and WYATT ALLEN GUNNER SMITH are currently residents of
8 Missouri. Mrs. Sanders is the legal spouse of decedent Timothy Gene Smith; Ms.
9 Simmons is the mother of decedent Timothy Gene Smith; and Mr. Smith is the son
10 of decedent Timothy Gene Smith.
11 29. Plaintiffs allege that defendants are jointly and severally liable for the
12 wrongful death and deprivations of the civil rights of Timothy Gene Smith that
13 occurred on November 4, 2015.
14 30. On November 4, 2015, decedent Timothy Gene Smith was with his
15 wife Janie Richelle Sanders in the Pacific Beach area of San Diego.
16 31. At the time, Janie Richelle Sanders was out on bail in the State of
17 Missouri for minor, non-violent drug possession charges. Defendant Natalie Ann
18 Macey, d/b/a Macey Bail Bonds, had posted bail on her behalf in the amount of
19 $750.00. Mrs. Sanders and her husband, Timothy Gene Smith, left Missouri to
20 visit decedent’s sister in San Diego.
21 32. Defendant MACEY engaged defendants ESCAMILLA, LEGAL
22 SERVICE BUREAU, INC., d/b/a GLOBAL FUGITIVE RECOVERY, both
23 registered and doing business in the State of California, and LELAND
24 CHAPMAN, LELAND CHAPMAN BAIL BOND CO. INC., DA KINE BAIL
25 BONDS, INC., and/or KAMA AINA BAIL BONDS, INC.
26 33. Plaintiffs allege that defendant LELAND B. CHAPMAN appears as a
27 “bounty hunter” on television in his own reality television show through defendant
28 LBC, INC. and was engaged in such capacity at all relevant times alleged herein.
7
COMPLAINT
1 34. Plaintiff further alleges that defendant MACEY had no relationship,

2 contractual or otherwise, with TIMOTHY GENE SMITH and was only interested
3 in apprehending JANIE RICHELLE SANDERS.
4 35. Plaintiffs allege that in an intentional and malicious effort to
5 apprehend Mrs. Sanders, defendants MACEY, ESCAMILLA, LEGAL SERVICES
6 BUREAU, LELAND CHAPMAN, LELAND CHAPMAN BAIL BOND CO.
7 INC., DA KINE BAIL BONDS, INC., and/or KAMA AINA BAIL BONDS, INC.
8 fabricated information about past violent activity of both JANIE RICHELLE
9 SANDERS as well as her husband TIMOTHY GENE SMITH, including acts of
10 violence, assault, weapon possession, and child molestation. These defendants
11 printed and distributed “WANTED” posters throughout San Diego which
12 contained this false information. In particular, the “WANTED” posters stated the
13 following:
14 “CAUTION: CI HAS ADVISED THAT SUBJECT SMITH
15 RECENTLY LEFT MISSOURI BY TRAIN ARMED
WITH AN AK-47 and/or 38 Revolver and is a convicted felon
16 with a long history of violent crimes … If information is
17 developed concerning either fugitive, Please contact the
assigned Bail Agent / Fugitive Recovery Agent: Dan Escamilla
18 (714) 307-1064”
19
36. These “WANTED” posters included pictures of plaintiff Janie
20
Richelle Sanders and decedent Timothy Gene Smith, complete with their dates of
21
birth, heights, and approximate weights. A true and correct copy of the
22
“WANTED” poster is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as
23
Exhibit A.
24
37. Plaintiffs allege that the information provided on these “WANTED”
25
posters was false, that neither Janie Sanders nor Timothy Smith had a history of
26
violent crimes, and that such information was provided to law enforcement
27
agencies solely for the purpose of engaging their assistance to apprehend persons
28
8
COMPLAINT
1 who otherwise would have been ignored due to the minor nature of their alleged
2 crimes and the minute amount of outstanding bail to be recovered.
3 38. On the date of the incident, November 4, 2015, decedent Timothy
4 Gene Smith was apparently seen by two officers of the San Diego Police
5 Department exiting a store in the Pacific Beach area of San Diego. Mr. Smith was
6 not wearing a t-shirt. He was only wearing tan shorts and black socks. Officers
7 gave chase and Timothy Smith fled. A perimeter was set up, with police
8 helicopters overhead, and canine units were deployed. Timothy Smith was
9 eventually cornered in an alley. After jumping on a ledge, he was unable to move
10 in any direction. He did not have any weapon. He was not a threat in any way-.
11 Yet, Officer Scott Holslag fatally shot Timothy Smith numerous times with a .45
12 caliber weapon-. Mr. Smith was declared dead shortly thereafter.
13 39. Timothy Smith had not committed any crime in California, was not
14 wanted for any crime in California. He had not made any verbal threats or
15 threatening movements or gestures. He was not a danger to the public, Holslag and
16 the other officers never warned him that officers would shoot before officers fired
17 upon him. Plaintiffs further allege that SDPD Officers did not use any other
18 alternative, non-deadly measures against Mr. Smith before using deadly force.
19 40. Decedent Timothy Gene Smith died intestate in the City of San
20 Diego, County of San Diego, State of California. No special administrator or
21 personal representative of the Estate of Timothy Gene Smith has been appointed
22 by the Court.
23 41. Plaintiffs allege that Officer Holslag and other unidentified officers
24 shot and killed an unarmed man who posed no immediate threat to them or to any
25 third person. They acted without justification or necessity. The officers’ actions
26 were unreasonable under the circumstances. Their actions constituted an excessive
27 and unreasonable use of force and an unlawful seizure in violation of Mr. Smith’s
28 clearly established rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution,
9
COMPLAINT
1 particularly the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, to be free from the use of
2 excessive force.
3 42. Plaintiffs further allege that Officer Scott Holslag has a history of
4 shooting unarmed and non-threatening persons. In 2002, the City of San Diego was
5 sued for his unlawful killing of Gary S. Martin in a similar case in which Mr.
6 Martin was unarmed. Officer Holslag shot Gary Martin three times while he was
7 seated in his vehicle. The San Diego police department did not discipline, and
8 continued employing, Officer Holslag. San Diego did not alter and/or promulgate
9 changes in policies and procedures, or make any changes with respect to the
10 practices or training of its police officers, including Officer Scott Holslag.
11 43. As Police Chief of the San Diego Police Department, Shelley
12 Zimmerman acted under color of law in supervising the SDPD, promulgating and
13 enforcing its policies and procedures, and supervising use of force investigations.
14 The SDPD’s policy and procedure regarding use of force is vague, ambiguous, and
15 inadequate. The SDPD further has a de facto policy, custom and practice of not
16 properly training its officers in the use of force; of authorizing and ratifying the use
17 of excessive force;, and in not properly investigating its officers' use of force. The
18 SDPD's deficient use of force, acceptance of the use of excessive force, and its use
19 of force investigation procedures are unconstitutional policies, customs and
20 practices under Monell v. Department of Social Services of New York, 436 U.S.
21 658 (1978).
22 44. The City of San Diego has failed to provide proper training for its
23 officers to avoid the use of excessive force, which constitutes a policy for which
24 the city is responsible. SDPD personnel are aware of these failures. They are
25 further aware that no discipline or adequate investigation will result from any
26 excessive use of force. As a result of these policies, customs, and practices, which
27 in fact encourage excessive use of force, Mr. Smith was killed.
28
10
COMPLAINT
1 45. The San Diego Police Department is an agency of the City of San
2 Diego, a municipality. As a result of the aforementioned, the City of San Diego
3 engaged in and continues to engage in a pattern and practice of conduct by law
4 enforcement officers that deprived Mr. Smith of rights, privileges, and immunities
5 secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States and by the
6 Constitution and laws of California.
7 46. The City of San Diego Police Department has a policy requiring the
8 use of body cameras. It requires that officers activate their body cameras before
9 confronting suspects. Claimants are informed and believe that Officer Scott
10 Holslag was either not wearing a body camera or did not activate his body camera
11 at the time of the incident, in direct violation of SDPD policy.
12 47. Plaintiffs allege the SDPD has a custom and practice of ignoring its
13 body camera policy or policies, and failing to enforce those policies. This further
14 encourages officers in their excessive use of force because absent video evidence,
15 officers know that it is their word against that of a deceased person who is unable
16 to testify about what actually transpired. The SDPD, including Police Chief
17 Shelley Zimmerman, knew about, encouraged and ratified this policy and practice.
18 This custom and practice is an unconstitutional policy (i.e. a policy designed to
19 disregard and ignore written policies) for which the City of San Diego is liable
20 under Monell v. Department of Social Services of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).
21 V.
22 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION [42 USC § 1983]
23 (Against Defendants Scott Holslag and DOES 1 to 25 on Behalf of
24 All Plaintiffs)
48. Plaintiffs reallege all prior paragraphs of this complaint and
25
incorporate the same herein by this reference. The acts alleged above, including the
26
act by defendant Holslag of shooting and killing an innocent, unarmed man
27
without justification or necessity, constituted an excessive and unreasonable use of
28
force and thus an unlawful seizure, in violation of Timothy Gene Smith’s rights as
11
COMPLAINT
1 guaranteed by the United States Constitution, particularly the Fourth Amendment.

2 Plaintiff Estate of Timothy Gene Smithis therefore entitled to damages pursuant to
3 42 USC 1983, et seq. in an amount to be proven at trial.
4 49. Further, by the acts alleged above, Plaintiffs' decedent was detained
5 and seized by Defendant Holslag without a warrant or reasonable cause. These
6 acts, which led to the shooting and death of Mr. Smith, constituted an unreasonable
7 seizure in violation of Mr. Smith’s rights guaranteed by the United States
8 Constitution. Plaintiff Estate of Timothy Gene Smith is entitled to damages
9 pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. section 1983, et seq. in an amount to be proven at trial.
10 50. The acts of defendant Holslag as described above amounted to
11 reckless indifference to decedent’s Constitutional Rights.
12 51. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful acts, excessive force,
13 unlawful seizure and recklessness described above, plaintiffs' decedent Timothy
14 Gene Smith suffered severe injuries and loss of his life. By reason of these acts his
15 estate is entitled to general and compensatory damages in an amount to be proven
16 at trial.
17 52. As a further result of the actions of said defendants alleged above,
18 decedent Timothy Gene Smith’s estate incurred reasonable funeral expenses and
19 loss of such income as Timothy Gene Smith would have earned in his lifetime. The
20 Estate of Timothy Gene Smith and his successors in interest have lost such estate
21 as decedent might reasonably have accumulated in his natural life expectancy.
22 Thus, plaintiffs are entitled to damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
23 53. The aforesaid acts of defendant Holslag were done willfully,
24 maliciously and/or with a reckless indifference to decedent’s constitutional rights
25 to and disregard for decedent's safety and continued life, therefore entitling
26 Plaintiffs' to punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
27 ///
28 ///
12
COMPLAINT
1 VI.
2 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION [42 USC § 1983]
3 (As Against Defendants Scott Holslag and DOES 1 to 25
4 by Janie Richelle Sanders,
Sandy Simmons and Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith)
5
6 54. Plaintiffs reallege all prior paragraphs of this complaint and
7 incorporates the same herein by this reference. As a result of the acts alleged
8 above, particularly the unjustified, unnecessary and excessive use of deadly force
9 which caused the death of Plaintiffs' decedent Timothy Gene Smith, Plaintiff Janie
10 Richelle Sanders suffered the loss of her husband; Sandy Lynn Simmons suffered
11 the loss of her son; and Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith suffered the loss of his father.
12 Thus, the acts of defendant Holslag deprived Plaintiffs Janie Sanders, Sandy
13 Simmons, and Wyatt Smith of their constitutionally protected First and Fourteenth
14 Amendment rights to the love, support, affection and companionship of Timothy
15 Smith, in violation of Plaintiffs’ rights as guaranteed by the Fourteenth
16 Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, inculing their First and Fifth Amendment
17 rights to intimate familial association.
18 55. The acts of defendants and each of them as described caused Timothy
19 Smith’s death, resulting in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment rights of
20 Plaintiffs Janie Sanders, Sandy Simmons, and Wyatt Smith, Said acts proximately
21 caused the death of plaintiffs' decedent, Timothy Smith, entitling Plaintiffs to
22 general and compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
24 maliciously and/or with callous and reckless indifference to decedent’s and
25 plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights and disregard for decedent's safety and continued
26 life, therefore entitling Plaintiffs to punitive damages in an amount to be proven at
27 trial.
28 ///
13
COMPLAINT
1 VII.
2 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
MONELL VIOLATION [42 USC § 1983]
3 UNLAWFUL POLICIES AND CUSTOM
4 (As Against Defendant City of San Diego by All Plaintiffs)
6 incorporate the same herein by this reference. On information and belief, Plaintiffs
7 allege that defendant City of San Diego, through its police department, has
8 unlawful policies, customs and habits of improper and inadequate hiring, training,
9 retention, discipline and supervision of its police officers, including Officer
10 Holslag, DOES 1 to 25, and others, proximately causing the constitutional
11 deprivations, injuries and damages alleged in the First and Second Causes of
12 Action, As a result, Plaintiffs are entitled to damages pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. §
13 1983, in an amount to be proven at trial.
14 58. The City of San Diego has also failed to provide proper training for its
15 officers in the use of excessive force which constitutes a policy for which the city
16 is responsible. SDPD personnel are aware of these failures and are further aware
17 that no discipline or adequate investigation will result from any excessive use of
18 force. As a result of these policies, customs, and practices, which in fact encourage
19 excessive use of force, Mr. Smith was killed.
20 59. Further, on information and belief Plaintiffs allege that defendant City
21 of San Diego, through its police department, has an unlawful policy, custom or
22 habit of permitting, condoning or ratifying the unnecessary and unjustified use of
23 force by its police officers, including the unjustified use of deadly force.
24 60. As Police Chief of the San Diego Police Department, Shelley
25 Zimmerman acted under color of law in supervising the SDPD, promulgating and
26 enforcing its policies and procedures, and supervising the use of force
27 investigations. The SDPD’s policy and procedure regarding use of force is vague,
28 ambiguous, and inadequate. The SDPD further has a de facto policy, custom and
14
COMPLAINT
1 practice of not properly training its officers in the use of force, authorizing and
2 ratifying the use of excessive force in unwarranted situations, and in not properly
3 investigating its officers' uses of force, including the investigation into the death of
4 Mr. Smith. The SDPD's deficient use of force, acceptance of the excessive use of
5 force in unwarranted situations, and its use of force investigation procedures are
6 unconstitutional policies, customs and practices under Monell v. Department of
7 Social Services of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).
8 61. The City of San Diego Police Department further has a policy
9 requiring the use of body cameras and further requires that officers activate their
10 body cameras before confronting suspects. Claimants are informed and believe that
11 Officer Scott Holslag was either not wearing a body camera or did not activate his
12 body camera at the time of the incident, in direct violation of SDPD policy.
13 62. Plaintiffs allege the SDPD has a custom and practice of ignoring its
14 body camera policy or policies, and failing to enforce those policies. This further
15 encourages officers in their excessive use of force because absent video evidence,
16 officers know that it is their word against that of a deceased person who is unable
17 to testify about what actually transpired. The SDPD, including Police Chief,
18 Shelley Zimmerman, knew about, encouraged and ratified this policy and practice.
19 This custom and practice was and is in effect an unconstitutional policy (i.e. a
20 policy designed to disregard and ignore written policies) for which the City of San
21 Diego is liable under Monell v. Department of Social Services of New York, 436
22 U.S. 658 (1978).
23 63. The San Diego Police Department is an agency of the City of San
24 Diego, a municipality. As a result of the aforementioned, the City of San Diego
25 engaged in and continues to engage in a pattern and practice of conduct by law
26 enforcement officers that deprived Mr. Smith of rights, privileges, and immunities
27 secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States and by the
28 Constitution and laws of California.
15
COMPLAINT
1 64. As a proximate result of the unlawful policies, customs and habits

2 alleged above, Plaintiffs suffered the constitutional violations alleged in the First
3 and Second Causes of Action, the injuries alleged in the First and Second Causes
4 of Action and the injuries alleged in paragraphs 51, 52, 54 and 55 above and thus
5 Plaintiffs are entitled to general and compensatory damages in an amount to be
6 proven at trial.
7 VIII.
8 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
FAILURE TO PROPERLY TRAIN
9 (By all Plaintiffs against Shelley Zimmerman, and City of San Diego)
10
11
incorporate the same herein by this reference.
12
66. Officials of the San Diego Police Department, acting under color of
13
law, have subjected decedent Timothy Smith and other persons similarly situated
14
to a pattern of conduct consisting of continuing, widespread and persistent pattern
15
of unconstitutional misconduct.
16
67. Defendants Zimmerman and Does have failed to maintain adequate
17
and proper training necessary to educate officers as to the Constitutional rights of
18
arrestees.
19
68. There has been an official policy of acquiescence in the wrongful
20
conduct. Defendants failed to promulgate corrective policies and regulations in the
21
face of repeated Constitutional violations.
22
69. Defendants City of San Diego, Does and Zimmerman with deliberate
23
indifference, disregarded a duty to protect the public from official misconduct.
24
70. The failure to promulgate or maintain constitutionally adequate
25
training was done with deliberate indifference to the rights of Timothy Smith and
26
others in his position.
27
28
16
COMPLAINT
1 71. Despite their knowledge of previous instances of wrongful deaths,

2 Defendants failed to properly train or retrain their officers to prevent the deaths of
3 arrestees.
4 72. The constitutionally infirm lack of adequate training as to the
5 individual defendants in this case caused Timothy Smith harm.
6 73. As a result of actions by Defendants City of San Diego, Does, and
7 Zimmerman, decedent Timothy Smith suffered physical and psychological
8 injuries.
9 74. As a result of actions by Defendants City of San Diego, Does, and
10 Zimmerman, decedent Timothy Smith suffered physical and psychological
11 injuries.
12 IX.
13 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
FAILURE TO PROPERLY SUPERVISE AND DISCIPLINE
14 (By all Plaintiffs against the City of San Diego, Zimmerman and Supervisory
15 Doe Defendants 41-50)
17 incorporate the same herein by this reference.
18 78. Defendants City of San Diego, Does, and Zimmerman failed to
19 provide adequate supervision and discipline to officers who are required to meet
20 the standards of the Constitution.
22 provide adequate supervision and discipline to officers that hold the power,
23 authority, insignia, equipment and arms entrusted to them.
25 promulgate and enforce adequate policies and procedures related to misconduct
26 and the violation of citizens’ civil rights by SDPD officers.
27
28
17
COMPLAINT
1 81. Defendants City of San Diego, Does, and Zimmerman have a

2 widespread history of ratifying deputy misconduct by failing to conduct
3 appropriate investigations.
4 82. Defendants were aware of previous instances of wrongful deaths and
5 failed to properly supervise and discipline their employees.
6 83. Defendants City of San Diego, Does, and Zimmerman refused to
7 investigate misconduct and/or took no remedial steps or action against their
8 officers.
9 84. Upon information and belief, supervising officers were made aware of
10 the misconduct or witnessed the Constitutional violations committed by their
11 employees but failed to supervise or discipline them.
12 85. There has been an official policy of acquiescence in the wrongful
13 conduct. Defendants failed to promulgate corrective policies and regulations in the
14 face of repeated Constitutional violations.
15 86. Defendants condoned and acquiesced in the abusive behavior of their
16 subordinates by refusing to retrain them, discipline them, or correct their abusive
17 behavior.
18 87. As a result of the Defendants’ historical failure to properly supervise
19 and discipline deputies, Defendants were deliberately indifferent to the needs of
20 Plaintiff. The failure to supervise and discipline was the moving force behind the
21 misconduct of the deputies, the denial of medical care on the Plaintiff, the
22 retaliatory acts and the resulting pain and suffering and death.
23 X.
24 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS [CAL.CIV.CODE §52.1]
25 (As Against Defendants Scott Holslag, Shelley Zimmerman,
26 and City of San Diego by Estate of Timothy Smith)
18
COMPLAINT
1 89. The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and
2 Article I, section 13 of the California Constitution, guarantee (a) an individual's
3 right to be free from excessive force and (b) a wife’s right to the companionship of
4 her husband, a parent's right to the companionship of her child, and a son’s right to
5 the companionship of his father. California Civil Code confers a right to be secure
6 in one’s bodily integrity from assault and excessive force. By engaging in the acts
7 alleged above, Defendants denied those rights to Plaintiffs, thus giving rise to
8 claims for damages pursuant to California Civil Code section 52.1.
9 90. Defendants interfered by threats, intimidation, or coercion, with the
10 exercise or enjoyment by Timothy Smith of rights secured by the Constitution or
11 laws of the United States.
12 91. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' actions, as alleged
13 herein, Plaintiffs were injured as set forth above and are entitled to damages,
14 including compensatory and punitive damages, in an amount to be proven at trial
15 and in excess of the jurisdictional amount required by this Court.
16 92. As Timothy Smith’s successor-in-interest, the Estate is entitled to
17 claim Timothy Gene Smith’s pre-death damages. Plaintiffs have standing to claim
18 damages for Defendants' violations of their Fourteenth Amendment rights.
19 93. In conducting himself as alleged herein, Holslag and DOES 1 to 25
20 were acting within the course and scope of their employment with Defendant City
21 of San Diego. Thus, the City is responsible for Holslag’s actions.
22 94. In doing the foregoing wrongful acts, Defendants acted in reckless
23 and callous disregard for Plaintiffs' constitutional rights. The wrongful acts, and
24 each of them, were willful, oppressive, fraudulent and malicious, thus warranting
25 the imposition of punitive damages against each individual Defendant in an
26 amount adequate to punish the wrongdoers and deter future misconduct.
27 ///
28 ///
19
COMPLAINT
1 XI.
2 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE CIVIL RIGHTS
3 (As Against Defendants Macey, Escamilla, Legal Services Bureau, Inc.,
4 Leland Chapman, Leland Chapman Bail Bond Co. Inc., LBC, Inc.,
Da Kine Bail Bonds, Inc., and Kama Aina Bail Bonds Inc. by All Plaintiffs)
5
7 incorporate the same herein by this reference
8 96. Plaintiffs allege that defendants Macey, Escamilla, Legal Services
9 Bureau, Inc., Leland Chapman, Leland Chapman Bail Bond Co. Inc., LBC, Inc.,
10 Da Kine Bail Bonds, Inc., and Kama Aina Bail Bonds Inc. conspired to deprive
11 Timothy Gene Smith of his constitutionally protected rights equal protection and
12 due process as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
13 Constitution by fabricating and falsifying information about Timothy Smith, and
14 publishing and disseminating said information to law enforcement agencies with
15 the knowledge and expectation that law enforcement would act upon that
16 information to deprive Timothy Smith of said rights.
17 97. Plaintiffs further allege that Leland Chapman and LBC, Inc. further
18 conspired to deprive Timothy Smith of his Fourteenth Amendment guarantees to
19 equal protection and due process solely in order to document his capture (of which
20 they were unable to do) for defendant Chapman’s reality television show.
21 98. Defendants conspired to violate Timothy Smith’s Fourth Amendment
22 rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures by setting in motion a
23 series of acts that was likely to culminate in the use of excessive force by the San
24 Diego police. By providing false information which these Defendants intended for
25 the police to rely on, they caused the use of excessive force on the part of the
26 police who apprehended Mr. Smith without probable cause.
27 99. In so doing, plaintiffs allege that defendants Macey, Escamilla, Legal
28 Services Bureau, Inc., Leland Chapman, Leland Chapman Bail Bond Co. Inc.,
20
COMPLAINT
1 LBC, Inc., Da Kine Bail Bonds, Inc., and Kama Aina Bail Bonds Inc. conspired to
2 violate Timothy Smith’s rights.
5 including compensatory and punitive damages, in an amount to be proven at trial.
7 claim Timothy Gene Smith’s pre-death damages. Plaintiffs have standing to claim
8 damages for Defendants' violations of their own rights.
14 XII.
15 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENCE
16 (As Against All Defendants by All Plaintiffs)
17
18
19
104. By the acts alleged above, Defendants Zimmerman, Holslag, DOES 1
20
to 25, and other employees of the City of San Diego were negligent and breached
21
their duty of due care, thereby causing the injuries to and death of Timothy Gene
22
Smith as described in the First and Second Causes of Action, and the damages
23
described in paragraphs 51, 52, 54 and 55 above. As a result, Plaintiffs are entitled
24
to general and compensatory damages under California law in an amount to be
25
proven at trial.
26
105. Defendants County of San Diego, Zimmerman and Does 1-25
27
breached their duty of care owed to the Plaintiffs by, among other things, failing to
28
21
COMPLAINT
1 exercise reasonable care in the training, supervision, discipline and retention of

2 their officers.
3 106. The City of San Diego is responsible for the act of individual and Doe
4 Defendants under the principal of respondeat superior.
5 107. The conduct of defendants Macey, Escamilla, Legal Services Bureau,
6 Inc., Leland Chapman, Leland Chapman Bail Bond Co. Inc., LBC, Inc., Da Kine
7 Bail Bonds, Inc., and Kama Aina Bail Bonds Inc. in providing misleading
8 information to the police and others which was likely to lead to harm fell below the
9 standard of care owed to Timothy Gene Smith. These Defendants’ breach of duty
10 of care was the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury to Timothy Smith.
11
12 XIII.
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
13 BATTERY
14 (As Against Defendant Scott Holslag and DOES 1 to 25 by All Plaintiffs)
17 109. By the acts alleged herein, particularly defendant Holslag's act of
18 shooting and killing Timothy Gene Smith, as described in the Factual Allegations
19 and the First and Second Causes of Action, defendants committed a battery upon
20 Timothy Gene Smith which caused him to suffer injuries and wrongful death,
21 thereby entitling Plaintiffs to damages pursuant to California law. As a result,
22 Plaintiffs are entitled to general and compensatory damages in an amount to be
23 proven at trial.
24 110. In committing the acts alleged above, defendant Holslag acted
25 maliciously and/or was guilty of a wanton and reckless disregard for the rights and
26 feelings of Plaintiffs' decedent and by reason thereof Plaintiffs are entitled to
27 exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
28
22
COMPLAINT
1 XIV.
2 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
WRONGFUL DEATH [CAL.CIV.PROC. § 377.60]
3 (against All Defendants by Plaintiffs)
4
7 112. Defendants committed wrongful acts which proximately caused the
8 death of Tim Smith. Specifically, Defendants deprived Tim Smith of his rights
9 under the United States Constitution to be free from the punishment without due
10 process.
11 113. These acts resulted in the death of Tim Smith.
12 114. The City of San Diego is responsible for the act of individual and Doe
13 Defendants under the theory of respondeat superior.
14 115. The wrongful acts alleged above has destroyed the relationship
15 between Plaintiffs and Tim Smith and has legally, proximately, foreseeably and
16 actually caused severe emotional damages, including the loss of society,
17 companionship, emotional distress, and further economic and non-economic
18 damages according to proof at the time of trial.
19 XV.
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
20 SURVIVAL ACTION [CAL.CIV.PROC. § 377.30]
21 (As Against All Defendants by the Estate of Timothy Gene Smith)
22
23
24
117. Plaintiffs allege upon information and belief that decedent Timothy
25
Gene Smith did not die immediately following the fatal shooting by Officer Scott
26
Holslag, and lived for a period of time, however short, before finally passing.
27
118. The actual and proximate cause of decedent Timothy Smith’s injuries
28
and damages were the actions and/or omissions of all defendants as alleged further
23
COMPLAINT
1 herein, including conspiracy to deprive Timothy Gene Smith of his Fourteenth

2 Amendment rights through false publication and engagement of law enforcement
3 by Macey, Escamilla, Legal Services Bureau, Inc., Leland Chapman, Leland
4 Chapman Bail Bond Co. Inc., LBC, Inc., Da Kine Bail Bonds, Inc., and Kama
5 Aina Bail Bonds Inc., the deprivation of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by
6 Zimmerman, Holslag, and the City of San Diego, and the negligent actions of
7 Holslag and DOES 1 to 25.
8 119. As such, plaintiffs allege they are entitled to damages for the
9 aforementioned actions and/or omissions by all defendants pursuant to California
10 Civil Code § 377.30. Plaintiff Estate of Timothy Smith is entitled to damages for
11 the loss or damage that decedent Timothy Gene Smith sustained or incurred before
12 death, including exemplary or punitive damages for pain, suffering, and
13 disfigurement for which defendants and each of them are responsible, according to
14 proof at trial.
15 XVI.
16 TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
17 (As Against Defendants MACEY, ESCAMILLA, LEGAL SERVICES
INC., DA KINE BAIL BONDS, INC., and/or KAMA AINA BAIL BONDS,
19 INC. by Plaintiff Janie Richelle Sanders)
20
21
22
121. Defendants unlawfully publicized false information accusing
23
Plaintiff Janie Sanders of committing serious criminal acts in reckless disregard for
24
the natural consequences of their actions and the harm their behavior would cause.
25
122. Defendants’ conduct was intentional, outrageous, malicious,
26
and done for the purpose of or with reckless disregard for the consequences,
27
causing Plaintiff Janie Sanders to suffer emotional suffering and mental distress,
28
physical pain, fear, anxiety, and mental anguish.
24
COMPLAINT
1 123. As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of the Defendants’

2 actions, Plaintiff Janie Sanders suffered damages and is entitled to damages against
3 Defendants.
4 XVII.
5 THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
DEFAMATION
9
10
11
125. Defendants MACEY, ESCAMILLA, LEGAL SERVICES
12
BUREAU, LELAND CHAPMAN, LELAND CHAPMAN BAIL BOND CO.
13
INC., DA KINE BAIL BONDS, INC., and/or KAMA AINA BAIL BONDS, INC
14
fabricated information about past violent activity of JANIE RICHELLE
15
SANDERS, publicly disseminating false allegations that Plaintiff committed acts
16
of violence, assault, child molestation, and possessed weapons. This information
17
was completely false and had no basis.
18
126. These defendants printed false information on “WANTED”
19
posters and distributed “WANTED” posters throughout San Diego which
20
contained this false information, alleging Plaintiff Janie Sanders was traveling with
21
her husband who was armed with an AK-47. See Exhibit A. The information on
22
the “WANTED” posters was completely false and had no basis.
23
24
25
26
provided such false information and material regarding Plaintiff Janie Sanders to
27
other persons, including members of the San Diego Police Department, who
28
25
COMPLAINT
1 understood the statements to mean that Plaintiff Janie Sanders had committed the
2 serious criminal acts as described.
3 128. Defendants failed to use reasonable care determine the truth or
4 falsity of such information regarding Plaintiff Janie Sanders before publicizing it.
5 129. The actual and proximate cause of Plaintiff Janie Sanders’
6 injuries and damages were the actions and/or omissions of these defendants.
7 130. Plaintiff Janie Sanders is entitled to damages legally,
8 proximately, foreseeably and actually caused by Defendants, including severe
9 emotional damages, ithe loss of society and companionship of her husband,
10 emotional distress, damage to her reputation, and further economic and non-
11 economic damages according to proof at the time of trial, including punitive
12 damages for the malicious, oppressive, and fraudulent acts of Defendants.
13 XV.
14 FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
FALSE LIGHT
18
19
20
21
22
23
fabricated information about past violent activity of JANIE RICHELLE
24
SANDERS, publicly disseminating false allegations that Plaintiff committed acts
25
of violence, assault, child molestation, and possessed weapons. These defendants
26
printed false information on “WANTED” posters and distributed “WANTED”
27
posters throughout San Diego which contained this false information, alleging
28
Plaintiff Janie Sanders was traveling with her husband who was armed with an
26
COMPLAINT
1 AK-47. See Exhibit A. The information on the “WANTED” posters was

2 completely false and had no basis.
3 133. Defendants MACEY, ESCAMILLA, LEGAL SERVICES
5 INC., DA KINE BAIL BONDS, INC., and/or KAMA AINA BAIL BONDS, INC
6 publicized such information and material showing Plaintiff Janie Sanders in a false
7 light.
8 134. Defendants knew the publication would create a false
9 impression about Plaintiff Janie Sanders, or acted with reckless disregard for the
10 truth. Defendants failed to determine the truth of such information before
11 publicizing it.
12 135. The actual and proximate cause of Plaintiff Janie Sanders’
13 injuries and damages were the actions and/or omissions of these defendants.
14 136. Plaintiff Janie Sanders is entitled to damages legally,
15 proximately, foreseeably and actually caused by Defendants, including severe
16 emotional damages, ithe loss of society and companionship of her husband,
17 emotional distress, damage to her reputation, and further economic and non-
18 economic damages according to proof at the time of trial.
19 XVI.
20 PRAYER FOR
DAMAGES AND OTHER REMEDIES
21
WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays for judgment against DEFENDANTS
22
and relief as follows:
23
1. For compensatory damages, including special and general damages;
24
2. For exemplary and punitive damages against defendants Holslag, Macey,
25
Escamilla, Legal Services Bureau, Inc., Leland Chapman, Leland Chapman Bail
26
Bond Co. Inc., Da Kine Bail Bonds, Inc., and Kama Aina Bail Bonds, Inc. only, in
27
an amount to be proven at trial;
28
27
COMPLAINT
1 3. For attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 USC §§ 1983 and 1988, and

2 Cal.Civ.Proc. § 52.1(h);
3 4. For costs of suit herein incurred;
4 5. For interest according to law;
5 6. For other and further relief as the court may deem proper.
6
Dated: December 8, 2016 IREDALE & YOO, APC
7
8 By: Julia Yoo
9 JULIA YOO
10
11 LAW OFFICES OF DONALD A. GREEN,
12 PC
13
By: Donald Green
14 DONALD A. GREEN
Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ESTATE OF
15 TIMOTHY GENE SMITH, JANIE
RICHELLE SANDERS, SANDY LYNN
16 SIMMONS, AND WYATT ALLEN
GUNNER SMITH
17
18
19
20
Plaintiffs demand a jury trial in this action.
21
22
23 Dated: December 8, 2016 IREDALE & YOO, APC
24
By: Julia Yoo
25
JULIA YOO
26
27
28
28
COMPLAINT
EXHIBIT 2
12/5/21, 10:23 AM Gmail - Smith v. City of San Deigo
Dan Escamilla <lsblaptop@gmail.com>
Smith v. City of San Deigo
1 message
Dan Escamilla, JD <dan@globalfugitiverecovery.com> Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 12:46 PM

To: donald@dgreenlaw.com, jyoo@iredalelaw.com
Cc: Andrew Brettler <abrettler@lavelysinger.com>
Bcc: Beth Chapman <mrs.dog@mac.com>
Please see attached letter.
Dan Escamilla, JD
Global Fugitive Recovery
a division of Legal Service Bureau, Inc.
888 W. Santa Ana Blvd., Suite 100
Santa Ana, CA 92701
www.globalfugitiverecovery.com
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION DISCLOSURE
This electronic transmission and any documents attached hereto may contain information that is legally privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure
under applicable law. The information is intended only for use by the recipient named above. If you are not the intended recipient and/or you have received
this electronic message in error, please notify the sender and permanently delete the electronic message and any attachments in their entirety, whether in
electronic or hard copy format. You are also hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of information received in error
(including any reliance thereon) is strictly prohibited and may result in civil or criminal liability.
SMITH LAWSUIT RESPONSE LETTER.pdf
233K
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=0710cee6f6&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1554450574598590328&simpl=msg-f%3A15544505745… 1/1
GLOBAL FUGITIVE RECOVERY
A division of Legal Service Bureau, Inc.
888 W. Santa Ana Blvd, Suite 100
Santa Ana, California 92701
Voicemail & Fax: (714) 783-3016
Cell Phone: (714) 307-1064
e-mail: dan@globalfugitiverecovery.com
December 22, 2016
VIA US MAIL AND E-MAIL TO donald@dgreenlaw.com
Donald A. Green
Law Offices of Donald A. Green, PC
1902 Wright Place, 2nd Floor
Carlsbad, CA 92008
VIA US MAIL AND E-MAIL TO jyoo@iredalelaw.com
Eugene G. Iredale
Iredale & Yoo, APC
105 W. “F” Street, 4th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101-6087
RE: Estate of Timothy Gene Smith et al. v. City of San Diego, et al.
Dear Messrs. Green and Iredale,
The undersigned has been notified, by a December 14, 2016 telephone call from a San
Diego Tribune reporter, that a federal complaint has been filed seeking damages against
Daniel Escamilla, as an individual and as a director and officer of Legal Service Bureau,
a California Corporation and the parent corporation of Global Fugitive Recovery.
Service of a summons and complaint in this matter has not been effected against the
undersigned or any of these related entities and personal service is not being waived.
This letter is intended to advise each of the plaintiff’s attorneys, and the plaintiff, that the
claims brought against this defendant are wholly without merit and are not warranted
under existing law. Based on the lack of legal and factual merit of plaintiff’s claims
against this defendant, the undersigned is demanding immediate dismissal as a defendant
in this action. The dismissal may be without prejudice, leaving plaintiffs with the option
of re-naming this defendant in the future if evidence is later discovered which supports a
valid claim against this defendant under California law.
Finally, this letter will place plaintiffs, and its attorneys, on notice that if the undersigned
and related entities are not immediately dismissed from this action, monetary and
nonmonetary sanctions, including but not limited to a Rule 11 motion will be brought
against plaintiff and its attorneys seeking costs, attorney’s fees and sanctions.
Messrs. Green and Iredale
December 22, 2016
Page Two
I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’

LAWSUIT
As against the undersigned and related entities, Plaintiffs allege seven (7) causes of
action:
1.) Conspiracy to violate the equal protection and due process rights under the 14th
Amendment of Timothy Gene Smith “by [allegedly] fabricating and falsifying
information about Timothy Smith, and publishing and disseminating said
information to law enforcement agencies with the knowledge and expectation that
law enforcement would act upon that information to deprive Timothy Smith of
said rights.”
2.) Negligence “in providing misleading information to the police and others which
was likely to lead to harm fell below the standard of care owed to Timothy Gene
Smith.”
3.) Wrongful Death under CCP 377.60 by allegedly “depriv[ing] Tim Smith of his
rights under the United States Constitution to be free from the punishment without
due process.”
4.) Survival Action under CCP 377.30 by allegedly committing a “conspiracy to
deprive Timothy Gene Smith of his Fourteenth Amendment rights through false
publication and engagement of law enforcement…”
5.) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress by “publiciz[ing] false information
accusing Plaintiff Janie Sanders of committing serious criminal acts in reckless
disregard for the natural consequences of their actions and the harm their behavior
would cause.”
6.) Defamation by “publicly disseminating false allegations that Plaintiff committed
acts of violence, assault, child molestation, and possessed weapons…” which
were allegedly false.
7.) False Light by allegedly “fabricat[ing] information about past violent activity of
JANIE RICHELLE SANDERS, publicly disseminating false allegations that
Plaintiff committed acts of violence, assault, child molestation, and possessed
weapons.”
II. THE COMPLAINT IS IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA’S ANTI-SLAPP
STATUTE
California’s anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 435.16(b)(1), provides

in pertinent part:
“A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in
furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States
or California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a
special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has
established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.”
December 22, 2016
Page Three
To prevail on a motion to strike under section 415.16, a defendant must demonstrate that
the acts complained of were taken “in furtherance of the [defendant]’s right of petition or
free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public
issue” and that plaintiff has demonstrated a probability of prevailing on the claim.
Plaintiff’s complaint as to this defendant is premised on this defendant’s dissemination of

the police advisory flyers. There is no question that such actions were taken in
furtherance of the undersigned’s First Amendment rights and in furtherance of public
safety and police officer safety. The evidence will easily establish that the dissemination
of the police advisories arise from a protected activity by the undersigned.
The issue will then become whether plaintiffs can demonstrate a probability of prevailing
on their claims, all based on the communications made by defendant to the police. As to
this issue, California law unequivocally provides that statements to police officers by
private citizens are privileged communications.
Our state’s Supreme Court has held that the litigation privilege under Civil Code section
47, subdivision (b) provides an absolute privilege from tort liability for communications
concerning possible wrongdoing made to a local police department. (Hagberg v.
California Federal Bank FSB (2004) 32 Cal.4th 350, 364; accord Mulder v. Pilot Air
Freight (2004) 32 Cal.4th 384, 387.) The Supreme Court explained that section 47,
subdivision (b) “‘serves the important public interest of securing open channels of
communications’ between citizens and law enforcement personnel investigating
wrongdoing.” (Mulder v. Pilot Air Freight, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 387; Hagberg v.
California Federal Bank FSB, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 372.)
Because all of the undersigned’s alleged liability is based on communications which are
absolutely privileged under Civil Code section 47 and which are within the category of
constitutionally protected speech, there is no reasonable cause for this defendant to be
named as a party in this litigation. Any claims against this defendant which are premised
on his communications with the police, are wholly without merit.
III. THE LAWSUIT IS IN POTENTIAL VIOLATION OF THE ATTORNEYS’

ETHICAL OBLIGATIONS
Business & Professions Code section 6068(c), imposes a duty upon a lawyer to bring
only "legal or just" claims or defenses in civil actions. Similarly, the Rules of
Professional Conduct provide:
“A member shall not seek, accept, or continue employment if the member

knows or should know that the objective of such employment is: (A) To
bring an action, conduct a defense, assert a position in litigation, or take an
appeal, without probable cause and for the purpose of harassing or
maliciously injuring any person; or (B) To present a claim or defense in
litigation that is not warranted under existing law, unless it can be
supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or
reversal of such existing law. Rules of Professional Conduct section 3-200
(Bold added.)
December 22, 2016
Page Four
Well-settled California law explains what it means to bring an action “without probable
cause”:
An action is deemed to have been pursued without probable cause if it was

not legally tenable when viewed in an objective manner as of the time the
action was initiated or while it was being prosecuted. The court must
'determine whether, on the basis of the facts known to the defendant, the
institution of the prior action was legally tenable.' (Sheldon Appel Co. v.
Albert & Oliker (1989) 47 Cal.3d 863, 878.)
'The resolution of that question of law calls for the application of an

objective standard to the facts on which the defendant acted. [Citation.]'
(Ibid., italics omitted.) The test the court is to apply is whether 'any
reasonable attorney would have thought the claim tenable . . . .' Id. at p. 17
886.
As the Court noted in Jorgensen v. Taco Bell Corp. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1398,
“[f]rivolous litigation is frequently avoided by a careful lawyer’s investigation of a
client’s claims before filing suit.”
In the within case, there is no there is no evidence which establishes that any of the
plaintiffs was the subject of communications made to the police concerning Timothy
Smith as stated in police advisory attached to the complaint. Accordingly, there is no
factual or legal basis for any of the plaintiffs to bring causes of action for either
defamation or false light. In any event, as discussed above, there is an absolute privilege
as to communications by the undersigned to police officers.
IV. SANCTIONS UNDER FRCP RULE 11 WILL BE SOUGHT IF THE

UNDERSIGNED DEFENDANT IS NOT DISMISSED
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 11, provides that a pleading, motion, or paper
must be “warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension,
modification, or reversal of existing law.”
An attorney must conduct an objectively reasonable inquiry into the facts and law to
make sure the complaint is well-founded Holgate v. Baldwin 425 F.3d 671, 675-77 (9th
Cir. 2005). To constitute a reasonable inquiry, the prefiling investigation must uncover a
factual basis for the plaintiff’s allegations, as well as a legal basis. Coonts v. Potts 316
F.3d 745, 753 (8th Cir. 2003)
The pre-filing inquiry also includes the obligation to investigate affirmative defenses. See
Tura v. Sherwin-Williams Co. Nos. 90-3419, 90-3445, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 11792, at
*8 (6th Cir. May 28, 1991); White v. Gen. Motors Corp. 908 F.2d 675, 682 (10th Cir.
1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1069 (1991); Profile Publishing & Management Corp. APS
v. Musicmaker.com, Inc. 242 F. Supp. 2d 363, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 991, at *11-12
(S.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 2003).
December 22, 2016
Page Five
As explained in Section II. of this letter, all of the undersigned’s actions which form the
basis of the plaintiffs’ complaint, involve constitutionally protected speech and are
absolutely privileged under California law. No reasonable attorney with any basic
understanding of California’s anti-SLAPP statute or California’s litigation privilege as it
applies to communications made by civilians to police officers, would file or move
forward with the causes of action that the plaintiffs have brought against the undersigned.
At this juncture, I have not yet been served with the complaint, nor have I hired an
attorney to represent me in these proceedings. However, if plaintiffs do not voluntarily
dismiss the undersigned from these proceedings I will have no choice but to engage the
services of a law firm specializing in federal litigation and incur costs and attorney’s fees
to bring a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal motion.
If it becomes necessary to incur attorney’s fees to seek dismissal of this action as to the
undersigned, I will direct this attorney to file a separate Rule 11 motion to recoup all
costs and attorney’s fees which are expended by the undersigned, as well as sanctions,
against all plaintiffs, Donald A. Green, Eugene G. Iredale and the law firm of Iredale &
Yoo, APC. Other remedies arising out of the unwarranted claims being brought against
the undersigned may also be sought. These remedies may include, but are not limited to,
a malicious prosecution action against plaintiffs and their attorneys after the action is
terminated in favor of this defendant.
While this case resulted in an unfortunate loss of life, all of the actions taken by the
undersigned in this case were in the course and scope of fugitive recovery operations and
entirely lawful and appropriate. For the reasons discussed in detail herein, I will look
forward to receiving plaintiff’s dismissal as to the undersigned defendant and related
entities.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Very Truly Yours,
Dan Escamilla
/de
cc: Andrew B. Brettler (via e-mail only to: abrettler@lavelysinger.com)

Lavely & Singer
2049 Century Park East, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2906
EXHIBIT 3
APPEAL,STAYED,ENE,PROTO
U.S. District Court
Southern District of California (San Diego)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:16−cv−02989−WQH−MSB
Estate of Timothy Gene Smith et al v. City of San Diego et al Date Filed: 12/08/2016
Assigned to: Judge William Q. Hayes Jury Demand: Both
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
Case in other court: USCA, 18−55429 Jurisdiction: Federal Question
USCA, 21−55073
Cause: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act − Civil Action for
Deprivation of Rights
Plaintiff
Estate of Timothy Gene Smith represented by Donald A Green
by his successor in interest Wyatt Allen Law Office of Donald A Green, PC
Gunner Smith 5927 Balfour Ct. # 202
Carlsbad, CA 92008
(760) 431−5290
Fax: (760) 268−9889
Email: donald@dgreenlaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eugene G. Iredale
Iredale & Yoo, APC
105 West F Street
4th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101−6036
(619)233−1525
Fax: (619)233−3221
Email: egiredale@iredalelaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Julia Yoo
Iredale & Yoo, APC
105 West F Street
4th Floor
(619)233−1525
Fax: (619)233−3221
Email: jyoo@iredalelaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Plaintiff
Janie Richelle Sanders represented by Donald A Green
as an individual (See above for address)
TERMINATED: 03/09/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Julia Yoo
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
Eugene G. Iredale
Plaintiff
Sandy Lynn Simmons represented by Donald A Green
LEAD ATTORNEY
Julia Yoo
LEAD ATTORNEY
Eugene G. Iredale
Plaintiff
Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith represented by Donald A Green
LEAD ATTORNEY
Julia Yoo
LEAD ATTORNEY
Eugene G. Iredale
V.
Defendant
Shelley Zimmerman represented by Casey M. Sweda
individuals and on behalf of City of San San Diego City Attorney's office
Diego 1200 Third Avenue
TERMINATED: 07/13/2017 Suite 1100
San Diego, CA 92101
619−533−5800
Fax: 619−533−5856
Email: csweda@sandiego.gov (Inactive)
LEAD ATTORNEY
Jacqueline J. McQuarrie
San Diego City Attorney's Office
1200 Third Avenue
Suite 1100
San Diego, CA 92101
619−533−5910
Email: jmcquarrie@sandiego.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
Rayna A. Stephan
Office of The San Diego City Attorney
1200 Third Avenue
Suite 1100
San Diego, CA 92101
(619)533−5800
Fax: (619)533−5856
Email: rstephan@sandiego.gov
TERMINATED: 12/10/2019
LEAD ATTORNEY
Pamela C. Chalk
Murchison & Cumming, LLP
750 B Street
Suite 2550
San Diego, CA 92101
619−544−6838
Fax: 619−544−1568
Email: pchalk@murchisonlaw.com
Defendant
Scott Holslag represented by Casey M. Sweda
LEAD ATTORNEY
LEAD ATTORNEY
Rayna A. Stephan
LEAD ATTORNEY
Tia Forney Ramirez

Office of the City Attorney
City of San Diego
1200 Third Avenue
Suite 1620
San Diego, CA 92106
619−533−5832
Email: TRamirez@sandiego.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
Tyler Louis Fischer Krentz

City of San Diego
City Attorney's Office
1200 Third Avenue
Suite 1100
San Diego, CA 92101
619−533−5800
Fax: 619−533−5856
Email: tkrentz@sandiego.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
Pamela C. Chalk
Defendant
Natalie Ann Macey represented by Bethsaida C. Obra−White
as an individual Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
doing business as 402 W. Broadway
Macey Bail Bonds Suite 1850
619.595.5583
Fax: 619.595.7873
Email: BObra−White@hbblaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Kristen Lee Price

Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch
LLP
525 B Street
Suite 2200
San Diego, CA 92101
619−238−1900
Email: pricek@lanepowell.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Lawrence S. Zucker , II
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 1850
San Diego, CA 92101
619−595−5583
Fax: 619−595−7873
Email: lzucker@hbblaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Stanley D Prowse
Law Offices of Stanley D. Prowse
5876 Owens Avenue
Suite 150
Carlsbad, CA 92008
760−438−8460
Fax: 760−438−4379
Email: hdermody@stanprowse.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Legal Service Bureau, Inc.
a California domestic corporation
doing business as
Global Fugitive Recovery
Defendant
Dan Escamilla represented by Dan Escamilla
as an individual and on behalf of Legal 304 S. Jones Blvd. #3505
Service Bureau, Inc. (PRO SE Las Vegas, NV 89107
ALLOWED TO E−FILE) (714) 783−3016
Fax: (714) 783−3016
Email: dan@escamilla.com
PRO SE
Defendant
Leland Chapman Bail Bond Co. Inc. represented by David Harrison Lawton
a Colorado corporation The Gallagher Law Group PC
TERMINATED: 09/20/2017 1875 Century Park East
Suite 1550
Los Angeles, CA 90067
310−203−2600
Fax: 310−203−2610
Email: dlawton@thegallaghergroup.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
LBC, Inc. represented by David Harrison Lawton
a Hawaii corporation (See above for address)
Defendant
Da Kine Bail Bonds, Inc.
a Hawaii corporation
Defendant
Kama Aina Bail Bonds, Inc. represented by David Harrison Lawton
a Hawaii Corporation (See above for address)
Defendant
Leland B. Chapman represented by David Harrison Lawton
as an individual and on behalf of Leland (See above for address)
Chapman Bail Bond Co. Inc., LBC, Inc., LEAD ATTORNEY
and Kama Aina Bail Bonds, Inc. ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Does 1−50
inclusive
Defendant
San Diego, City of represented by Casey M. Sweda
LEAD ATTORNEY
LEAD ATTORNEY
Rayna A. Stephan
LEAD ATTORNEY
Tia Forney Ramirez

LEAD ATTORNEY
Pamela C. Chalk
Defendant
David Brecht represented by Jacqueline J. McQuarrie
LEAD ATTORNEY
Casey M. Sweda
Defendant
Ismael Soto
as an individual
Date Filed # Docket Text

12/08/2016 1 COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt
number 0974−9640827.), filed by Wyatt Allen, Estate of Timothy Gene Smith, Janie
Richelle Sanders, Gunner Smith, Sandy Lynn Simmons. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover
Sheet, # 2 Exhibit A)
The new case number is 3:16−cv−2989−WQH−MDD. Judge William Q. Hayes and

Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin are assigned to the case. (Yoo, Julia)(dsn) (sjt).
(Entered: 12/09/2016)
12/09/2016 2 Summons Issued.
Counsel receiving this notice electronically should print this summons and serve
it in accordance with Rule 4, Fed.R.Civ.P and LR 4.1. (dsn) (Entered: 12/09/2016)
12/09/2016 3 **DOCKETED IN ERROR**(dsn). (Entered: 12/09/2016)
12/09/2016 4 NOTICE of Appearance by Donald A Green on behalf of Wyatt Allen, Estate of
Timothy Gene Smith, Janie Richelle Sanders, Sandy Lynn Simmons, Gunner Smith
(Green, Donald)Attorney Donald A Green added to party Wyatt Allen(pty:pla),
Attorney Donald A Green added to party Estate of Timothy Gene Smith (pty:pla),
Attorney Donald A Green added to party Janie Richelle Sanders(pty:pla), Attorney
Donald A Green added to party Sandy Lynn Simmons(pty:pla), Attorney Donald A
Green added to party Gunner Smith(pty:pla) (Entered: 12/09/2016)
12/09/2016 5 NOTICE of Change of Address by Donald A Green (Green, Donald) (Entered:
12/09/2016)
12/12/2016 6 ** AMENDED Summons Issued.
it in accordance with Rule 4, Fed.R.Civ.P and LR 4.1. (dsn) (Main Document 6
replaced on 12/15/2016) (dsn). (Main Document 6 replaced on 12/15/2016) (dsn).
(Entered: 12/12/2016)
12/29/2016 7 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against Does 1−50, Dan
Escamilla, Scott Holslag, Kama Aina Bail Bonds, Inc., LBC, Inc., Legal Service
Bureau, Inc., Leland B. Chapman, Leland Chapman Bail Bond Co. Inc., Natalie Ann
Macey, San Diego, City of, Shelley Zimmerman, filed by Janie Richelle Sanders,
Estate of Timothy Gene Smith, Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith, Sandy Lynn Simmons.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)New Summons Requested. (Iredale, Eugene) Modified
text on 1/5/2017 to add "First." Summons was issued. (mdc) (Entered: 12/29/2016)
12/29/2016 8 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Estate of Timothy Gene Smith, Janie Richelle
Sanders, Sandy Lynn Simmons, Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith of Defendant DA KLINE
BAIL BONDS, INC. only (Iredale, Eugene) (mdc.) (Entered: 12/29/2016)
01/05/2017 9 Summons Issued on the First Amended Complaint (Dkt # 7 ).
it in accordance with Rule 4, Fed.R.Civ.P. and LR 4.1. (mdc) (Entered: 01/05/2017)
01/05/2017 10 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Estate of Timothy Gene Smith. Scott Holslag
served. (Iredale, Eugene) (Entered: 01/05/2017)
01/05/2017 11 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Estate of Timothy Gene Smith. Shelley
Zimmerman served. (Iredale, Eugene) (Entered: 01/05/2017)
01/05/2017 12 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Estate of Timothy Gene Smith. San Diego, City of
served. (Iredale, Eugene) (Entered: 01/05/2017)
01/24/2017 13 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Estate of Timothy Gene Smith, Janie Richelle
Sanders, Sandy Lynn Simmons, Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith as to Eleventh Cause of
Action for Defamation in Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (Iredale, Eugene) (mdc)
(Entered: 01/24/2017)
01/25/2017 14 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 7 Amended Complaint,, by
Scott Holslag, San Diego, City of, Shelley Zimmerman. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of
Service)(Stephan, Rayna)Attorney Rayna A. Stephan added to party Scott
Holslag(pty:dft), Attorney Rayna A. Stephan added to party San Diego, City
of(pty:dft), Attorney Rayna A. Stephan added to party Shelley Zimmerman(pty:dft)
(mdc.) (Entered: 01/25/2017)
01/26/2017 15 ORDER Granting Joint Motion To Extend The Briefing Schedule As To Defendants
City Of San Diego, Shelley Zimmerman, And Scott Holslag's Responsive Pleadings
(Dkt # 14 ): The deadline to file responsive pleadings is extended to 2/9/2017. Signed
by Judge William Q. Hayes on 1/26/2017. (mdc) (Entered: 01/26/2017)
02/09/2017 16 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by Scott Holslag. (Attachments: # 1
Memo of Points and Authorities)(Chalk, Pamela)Attorney Pamela Chalk added to
party Scott Holslag(pty:dft) (Entered: 02/09/2017)
02/09/2017 17 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim as to First Amended Complaint by
San Diego, City of, Shelley Zimmerman. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and
Authorities)(Chalk, Pamela)Attorney Pamela Chalk added to party San Diego, City
of(pty:dft), Attorney Pamela Chalk added to party Shelley Zimmerman(pty:dft)
(Entered: 02/09/2017)
02/09/2017 18 NOTICE of Appearance by Pamela Chalk on behalf of Scott Holslag, San Diego, City
of, Shelley Zimmerman (Chalk, Pamela) (Entered: 02/09/2017)
02/21/2017 19 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Janie Richelle Sanders, Estate of Timothy Gene
Smith, Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith, Sandy Lynn Simmons. Natalie Ann Macey served.
(Green, Donald) (Entered: 02/21/2017)
02/21/2017 20 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Estate of Timothy Gene Smith. Legal Service
Bureau, Inc. served. (Iredale, Eugene) (Entered: 02/21/2017)
02/27/2017 21 Joint MOTION for Order Granting Leave to Consolidate Plaintiffs' Oppositions to
Defendants' Motions to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint and to Exceed the Page
Limitation by Estate of Timothy Gene Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of
Service)(Yoo, Julia) (Entered: 02/27/2017)
03/01/2017 22 ORDER Granting Joint Motion To Consolidate Plaintiffs' Oppositions To Defendants
City Of San Diego, Zimmerman And Holslag's Motions To Dismiss The First
Amended Complaint And To Exceed The Page Limitation (Dkt # 21 ). Signed by
Judge William Q. Hayes on 3/1/2017. (mdc) (Entered: 03/01/2017)
03/02/2017 23 MOTION to Dismiss Plantiff's First Amended Complaint by Natalie Ann Macey.
(Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities Memo of Points and
Authorities)(Prowse, Stanley)Attorney Stanley D Prowse added to party Natalie Ann
Macey(pty:dft) (dxj). (Entered: 03/02/2017)
03/06/2017 24 Ex Parte MOTION for Extension of Time to File Service of Summons by Estate of
Timothy Gene Smith, Janie Richelle Sanders, Sandy Lynn Simmons, Wyatt Allen
Gunner Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities, # 2 Declaration of
Donald A. Green, # 3 Exhibit A)(Green, Donald) (Entered: 03/06/2017)
03/06/2017 25 NOTICE of Change of Address by Donald A Green (Green, Donald) (Entered:
03/06/2017)
03/06/2017 26 RESPONSE in Opposition re 17 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim as
to First Amended Complaint, 16 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed
by Estate of Timothy Gene Smith, Janie Richelle Sanders, Sandy Lynn Simmons,
Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Grace Jun, # 2 Proof of
Service)(Yoo, Julia) (Entered: 03/06/2017)
03/10/2017 27 ORDER Extending Time For Plaintiffs To Serve Complaint (Re Dkt # 24 ): Plaintiffs'
ex parte motion is granted. Plaintiffs shall have 60 days from the date of this order to
serve and file proof of service of summons of the complaint on the remaining
defendants to be served. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 3/10/2017. (mdc)
(Entered: 03/10/2017)
03/13/2017 28 REPLY to Response to Motion re 17 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
as to First Amended Complaint filed by San Diego, City of, Shelley Zimmerman.
(Chalk, Pamela) (Entered: 03/13/2017)
03/13/2017 29 REPLY to Response to Motion re 16 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
filed by Scott Holslag. (Chalk, Pamela) (Entered: 03/13/2017)
03/27/2017 30 RESPONSE in Opposition re 23 MOTION to Dismiss Plantiff's First Amended
Complaint filed by Estate of Timothy Gene Smith, Janie Richelle Sanders, Sandy
Lynn Simmons, Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of
Service)(Iredale, Eugene) (Entered: 03/27/2017)
04/04/2017 31 Ex Parte MOTION for Service by Publication / Alternative Service by Estate of
Gunner Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities, # 2 Declaration, # 3
Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F, # 9
Exhibit G, # 10 Exhibit H)(Green, Donald) (Entered: 04/04/2017)
04/07/2017 32 NOTICE of [Proposed] Consent Order Granting Substitution of Attorney by Natalie
Ann Macey (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Zucker, Lawrence)Attorney
Lawrence S. Zucker, II added to party Natalie Ann Macey(pty:dft)QC re: proposed
order(acc). (Entered: 04/07/2017)
04/10/2017 33 ORDER to Substitute Attorney. Attorney Stanley D Prowse terminated. Signed by
Judge William Q. Hayes on 4/10/2017.(acc) (Entered: 04/10/2017)
04/19/2017 34 Joint MOTION to Dismiss the Tenth, Eleventh and Twelfth Causes of Action by
Natalie Ann Macey. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Zucker, Lawrence) (Entered:
04/19/2017)
05/01/2017 35 DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE: It is ordered that the motion to dismiss the Tenth,
Eleventh, and Twelfth causes of action with respect to defendant Macey (Dkt # 34 ) is
granted. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 5/1/2017. (mdc) (Entered: 05/02/2017)
05/04/2017 36 ORDER: Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Motion for Alternative Service of Summons (Dkt # 31 )
is granted. Plaintiffs shall be permitted to serve the summons on Defendants LBC Inc.,
Kama Aina Bail Bonds, Inc. and Leland B. Chapman by certified mail, return receipt
requested, and service by publication. Service by publication as to Defendants LBC
Inc., Kama Aina Bail Bonds, Inc. and Leland B. Chapman must be completed in the
following newspaper of general circulation in the state of Hawaii: West Hawaii Today.
Plaintiffs shall have ninety (90) days from the date of this order to serve and file proof
of service of summons of the complaint on the remaining defendants to be served.
Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 5/4/2017. (mdc) (Entered: 05/04/2017)
05/04/2017 37 Ex Parte MOTION for Service by Publication as to Defendant Dan Escamilla by
Estate of Timothy Gene Smith, Janie Richelle Sanders, Sandy Lynn Simmons, Wyatt
Allen Gunner Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities, # 2
Declaration of Donald A. Green, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6
Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F, # 9 Exhibit G, # 10 Exhibit H, # 11 Exhibit I, #
12 Exhibit J, # 13 Exhibit K, # 14 Exhibit L, # 15 Exhibit M)(Green, Donald)
(Entered: 05/04/2017)
06/05/2017 38 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Janie Richelle Sanders, Estate of Timothy Gene
Smith, Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith, Sandy Lynn Simmons. Leland B. Chapman, Leland
Chapman Bail Bond Co. Inc. served. (Green, Donald) (dxj). (Entered: 06/05/2017)
06/12/2017 39 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Janie Richelle Sanders, Estate of
Timothy Gene Smith, Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith, Sandy Lynn Simmons, as to Leland
B. Chapman. (Green, Donald) (Entered: 06/12/2017)
06/12/2017 40 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Janie Richelle Sanders, Wyatt Allen
Gunner Smith, Sandy Lynn Simmons, as to Kama Aina Bail Bonds, Inc.. (Green,
Donald) (Entered: 06/12/2017)
06/12/2017 41 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Janie Richelle Sanders, Wyatt Allen
Gunner Smith, Sandy Lynn Simmons, as to LBC, Inc.. (Green, Donald) (Entered:
06/12/2017)
06/12/2017 42 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or other Responsive Pleading by
Kama Aina Bail Bonds, Inc., LBC, Inc., Leland B. Chapman, Leland Chapman Bail
Bond Co. Inc.. (Lawton, David)Attorney David Harrison Lawton added to party Kama
Aina Bail Bonds, Inc.(pty:dft), Attorney David Harrison Lawton added to party LBC,
Inc.(pty:dft), Attorney David Harrison Lawton added to party Leland B.
Chapman(pty:dft), Attorney David Harrison Lawton added to party Leland Chapman
Bail Bond Co. Inc. (pty:dft) (Entered: 06/12/2017)
06/14/2017 43 ORDER Granting The Joint Motion To Extend The Time To File An Answer Or Other
Responsive Pleading To The Complaint (Dkt # 42 ): Defendant Leland Chapman Bail
Bond Co. Inc. shall have until the end of 8/4/2017 to file its answer or other responsive
pleading. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 6/14/2017. (mdc) (Entered:
06/14/2017)
07/13/2017 44 ORDER: Defendant Scott Holslag's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint
(Dkt # 16 ) is denied. Defendants City of San Diego and Shelley Zimmerman's motion
to dismiss the first amended complaint (Dkt # 17 ) is granted. Defendant Natalie Ann
Macey's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint (Dkt # 23 ) is denied. Signed
by Judge William Q. Hayes on 7/13/2017. (mdc) (Entered: 07/14/2017)
07/19/2017 45 ORDER: Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for Alternative Service of Summons (Dkt # 37 )
is granted. Plaintiffs shall be permitted to serve the summons on Defendant Escamilla
by publication. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 7/19/2017. (mdc) (jao).
(Entered: 07/19/2017)
07/21/2017 46 Joint MOTION to Dismiss 10th, 11th, 12th Claims [Rule 41(a)] by Kama Aina Bail
Bonds, Inc., LBC, Inc., Leland B. Chapman, Leland Chapman Bail Bond Co. Inc..
(Lawton, David) (Entered: 07/21/2017)
07/26/2017 47 ORDER granting 46 Joint Motion to Dismissing Plaintiffs' Tenth, Eleventh, and
Twelfth Causes of Action with Prejudice as to Defendants Leland Chapman Bail Bond
Co. Inc; LBC, Inc.; Kama Aina Bail Bonds, Inc.; and Leland B. Chapman Plaintiffs'
Ninth cause of action entitled "Conspiracy To Violate Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
shall remain with the parties maintaining all claims and/or defenses related thereto. All
parties shall bear their own attorneys' fees and costs related to the Tenth, Eleventh, and
Twelfth causes of action in this matter. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on
7/26/2017. (acc) (Entered: 07/26/2017)
07/27/2017 48 *** WITHDRAWN PER DKT # 49 *** − Scott Holslag's ANSWER to 7 Amended
Complaint,, by Scott Holslag. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Stephan, Rayna)
Modified text on 7/28/2017 to indicate withdrawn status. (mdc) (Entered: 07/27/2017)
07/27/2017 49 NOTICE of Withdrawal of ECF No. 48 by Scott Holslag re 48 Answer to Amended
Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Stephan, Rayna) (mdc.) (Entered:
07/27/2017)
07/27/2017 50 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand Answer to First Amended Complaint by
Scott Holslag. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Stephan, Rayna) (mdc.) (Entered:
07/27/2017)
08/02/2017 51 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and, MOTION to Dismiss for Lack
of Jurisdiction by Kama Aina Bail Bonds, Inc., LBC, Inc., Leland B. Chapman, Leland
Chapman Bail Bond Co. Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities, # 2
Declaration, # 3 Declaration and Exhibit A)(Lawton, David) (mdc) Modified on
8/10/2017 to correct filing header issue. (mdc) (Entered: 08/02/2017)
08/02/2017 52 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Kama Aina Bail Bonds, Inc., LBC, Inc., Leland
Chapman Bail Bond Co. Inc.. No Corporate Parents/Interested Parties. (Lawton,
David) (Entered: 08/02/2017)
08/04/2017 53 ANSWER to 7 Amended Complaint,, by Natalie Ann Macey. (Attachments: # 1 Proof
of Service)(Price, Kristen)Attorney Kristen Lee Price added to party Natalie Ann
Macey(pty:dft)(acc). (Entered: 08/04/2017)
08/24/2017 54 SERVICE by Publication filed by Estate of Timothy Gene Smith, Janie Richelle
Sanders, Sandy Lynn Simmons, Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith. Last publication date
8/16/2017. (Green, Donald) (Entered: 08/24/2017)
08/28/2017 55 Ex Parte MOTION to Continue Hearing Date and Extension of Time to File Response
by Estate of Timothy Gene Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Eugene Iredale, # 2
Proof of Service)(Iredale, Eugene) (Entered: 08/28/2017)
08/29/2017 56 RESPONSE in Opposition re 55 Ex Parte MOTION to Continue Hearing Date and
Extension of Time to File Response filed by Kama Aina Bail Bonds, Inc., LBC, Inc.,
Leland B. Chapman, Leland Chapman Bail Bond Co. Inc.. (Attachments: # 1
Declaration)(Lawton, David) (Entered: 08/29/2017)
08/31/2017 57 ORDER: Plaintiffs' ex parte motion to continue hearing date and extend time to file a
response to the motion to dismiss (Dkt # 55 ) is granted. The motion hearing date is
continued to 10/2/2017. Plaintiffs will file their response on or before 9/18/2017. Any
reply shall be filed by 9/25/2017. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 8/31/2017.
(mdc) (Entered: 08/31/2017)
09/18/2017 58 Joint MOTION to Dismiss Party Leland B. Chapman, et al. by Kama Aina Bail Bonds,
Inc., LBC, Inc., Leland B. Chapman, Leland Chapman Bail Bond Co. Inc.. (Lawton,
David) (9/19/2017 − Sent QC e−mail re missing certificate of service.) (mdc)
(Entered: 09/18/2017)
09/19/2017 59 NOTICE of Appearance by Casey M. Sweda on behalf of Scott Holslag, San Diego,
City of, Shelley Zimmerman (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Sweda,
Casey)Attorney Casey M. Sweda added to party Scott Holslag(pty:dft), Attorney
Casey M. Sweda added to party San Diego, City of(pty:dft), Attorney Casey M. Sweda
added to party Shelley Zimmerman(pty:dft) (Entered: 09/19/2017)
09/19/2017 60 DECLARATION Proof of Service by Defendants Kama Aina Bail Bonds, Inc., LBC,
Inc., Leland B. Chapman, Leland Chapman Bail Bond Co. Inc.. (Lawton, David)
(Entered: 09/19/2017)
09/20/2017 61 ORDER (Re Dkt # 58 ): Defendants Leland Chapman Bail Bond Co. Inc., LBC, Inc.
Kama Aina Bail Bonds, Inc., and Leland B. Chapman are dismissed with prejudice.
Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 9/20/2017. (mdc) (jao). (Entered: 09/21/2017)
09/26/2017 62 NOTICE AND ORDER For Early Neutral Evaluation Conference And Case
Management Conference: Early Neutral Evaluation and Case Management Conference
set for 10/26/2017 at 09:30 AM in the Chambers of Magistrate Judge Mitchell D.
Dembin. Joint Discovery Plan due 10/19/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell
D. Dembin on 9/26/2017. (mdc) (Entered: 09/26/2017)
09/26/2017 63 MINUTE ORDER: Defendants Leland Chapman Bail Bond Co. Inc., LBC Inc., Kama
Aina Bail Bonds, Inc., and Leland B. Chapmans Notice of Motion and Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint 51 is denied as moot. (no document
attached) (smr) (Entered: 09/27/2017)
10/05/2017 64 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings by Natalie Ann Macey. (Attachments: # 1
Memo of Points and Authorities, # 2 Proof of Service)(Obra−White,
Bethsaida)Attorney Bethsaida C. Obra−White added to party Natalie Ann
Macey(pty:dft) (jpp). (Entered: 10/05/2017)
10/10/2017 65 Notice of Document Discrepancies and Order Thereon by Judge William Q. Hayes
Accepting Document: Request for Electronic Filing Authorization, from Defendant
Dan Escamilla. Non−compliance with local rule(s), CivLR 7.1: Lacking memorandum
of points and authorities in support as a separate document. The document to be filed
Nunc Pro Tunc to date received (10/2/2017). Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on
10/10/2017. (All non−registered users served via U.S. Mail Service.) (mdc) (Entered:
10/10/2017)
10/10/2017 66 MOTION (Request) for Electronic Filing Authorization by Dan Escamilla. NUNC
PRO TUNC 10/2/2017, per Order (Dkt # 65 ). (mdc) (Entered: 10/10/2017)
10/10/2017 67 ORDER: The Motion for Leave of the Court to File Electronically is granted. (Dkt #
66 ). Plaintiff is required to follow all rules and policies in the ECF Manual. Signed by
Judge William Q. Hayes on 10/10/2017. (All non−registered users served via U.S.
Mail Service.) (mdc) (Entered: 10/11/2017)
10/17/2017 68 Ex Parte MOTION to Substitute Party Janie Richelle Sanders for Wyatt Allen Gunner
Smith as Successor−in−Interest to the Estate of Timothy Gene Smith and to Appoint
Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith as Successor−in−Interest to the Estate of Timothy Gene
Smith by Estate of Timothy Gene Smith, Janie Richelle Sanders, Sandy Lynn
Simmons, Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Janie Richelle
Sanders, # 2 Declaration of Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith, # 3 Declaration of Donald A
Green)(Green, Donald) (ajs). (Entered: 10/17/2017)
10/17/2017 69 Certificate of Service re 68 − originally filed as DECLARATION re 68 Ex Parte
MOTION to Substitute Party Janie Richelle Sanders for Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith as
Successor−in−Interest to the Estate of Timothy Gene Smith and to Appoint Wyatt
Allen Gunner Smith as Successor−in−Interest to the Estate of Timothy Gene Smith
PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs Estate of Timothy Gene Smith, Janie Richelle
Sanders, Sandy Lynn Simmons, Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith. (Green, Donald) Modified
on 10/18/2017 to indicate Certificate of Service. QC mailer sent re: wrong event
selected (ajs). (Entered: 10/17/2017)
10/18/2017 70 MINUTE ORDER: Any response to the Ex Parte Motion to Substitute Party 68 shall
be filed by 10/25/2017 (All non−registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(no
document attached) (smr) (Entered: 10/18/2017)
10/18/2017 71 Ex Parte MOTION to Continue Early Neutral Evaluation and Case Management
Conference by Natalie Ann Macey. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and
Authorities, # 2 Declaration of Bethsaida C. Obra−White, # 3 Proof of
Service)(Obra−White, Bethsaida) (ajs). (Entered: 10/18/2017)
10/19/2017 72 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim as to the Ninth, Tenth and Twelfth
Causes of Action in Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint by Dan Escamilla.
(Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities)(Escamilla, Dan) QC mailer sent
re: table of contents (ajs). (Entered: 10/19/2017)
10/19/2017 73 JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN by Scott Holslag (Chalk, Pamela)(ajs). (Entered:
10/19/2017)
10/23/2017 74 ORDER granting 71 Defendant Natalie Ann Macey's Ex Parte Motion to Continue
Early Neutral Evaluation/Case Management Conference. The Court finds good cause
to vacate the ENE/CMC currently scheduled for October 26. 2017 62 due to the
pending motions recently filed before the district judge. 64 , 72 The parties are
instructed to contact the chambers of Magistrate Judge Dembin within three (3) days
of receiving rulings on the pending motions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D.
Dembin on 10/23/2017. (no document attached) (atk) (Entered: 10/23/2017)
10/23/2017 75 RESPONSE in Opposition re 68 Ex Parte MOTION to Substitute Party Janie Richelle
Sanders for Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith as Successor−in−Interest to the Estate of
Timothy Gene Smith and to Appoint Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith as
Successor−in−Interest to the Estate of Timothy Gene Smith filed by Dan Escamilla.
(Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT
DAN ESCAMILLAS RESPONSE TO THE EX PARTE MOTION OF PLAINTIFF TO
SUBSTITUTE PARTY AND OBJECTION TO THE PLAINTIFFS PROPOSED ORDER
THEREON [AND] REQUEST FOR FINDINGS OF FACT TO BE ISSUED IN THE EX
PARTE ORDER)(Escamilla, Dan) (ajs). (Entered: 10/23/2017)
10/24/2017 76 Ex Parte MOTION to Continue Hearing Date, Ex Parte MOTION for Extension of
Time to File Response/Reply as to 64 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings by
Allen Gunner Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proof of Service)(Iredale,
Eugene) (ajs). (Entered: 10/24/2017)
10/24/2017 77 MINUTE ORDER: Any Reply to Defendant Escamilla's Response 75 shall be filed by
October 31, 2017. (All non−registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(no
10/25/2017 78 MINUTE ORDER: Defendant Natalie Ann Macey shall file a Response to Plaintiff's
Ex Parte Motion to Continue Motion Hearing Date 76 by October 27, 2017 (no
10/25/2017 79 RESPONSE in Opposition re 68 Ex Parte MOTION to Substitute Party Janie Richelle
Successor−in−Interest to the Estate of Timothy Gene Smith filed by Scott Holslag, San
Diego, City of, Shelley Zimmerman. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and
Authorities, # 2 Proof of Service)(Sweda, Casey) (ajs). (Entered: 10/25/2017)
10/26/2017 80 MINUTE ORDER: Any Reply to the City of San Diego's Response 79 shall be filed
by October 31, 2017. (All non−registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(no
10/26/2017 81 REPLY to Response to Motion re 68 Ex Parte MOTION to Substitute Party Janie
Richelle Sanders for Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith as Successor−in−Interest to the Estate
of Timothy Gene Smith and to Appoint Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith as
Successor−in−Interest to the Estate of Timothy Gene Smith filed by Estate of Timothy
Gene Smith, Sandy Lynn Simmons, Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith. (Attachments: # 1
Declaration Supplemental Declaration of Plaintiff Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith, # 2
Exhibit 1 to Suppl. Decl. Wyatt Smith, # 3 Exhibit 2 to Suppl. Decl. Wyatt Smith, # 4
Exhibit 3 to Suppl. Decl. Wyatt Smith, # 5 Declaration Donald Green, # 6 Proof of
Service)(Iredale, Eugene)(ajs). (Entered: 10/26/2017)
10/27/2017 82 RESPONSE in Opposition re 76 Ex Parte MOTION to Continue Hearing DateEx
Parte MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 64 MOTION for
Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Natalie Ann Macey. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration
of Bethsaida Obra−White, # 2 Proof of Service)(Obra−White, Bethsaida) (ajs).
(Entered: 10/27/2017)
11/03/2017 83 ORDER: The motion hearing date currently scheduled for 11/6/2017 for defendant
Natalie Ann Macey's motion for judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 64 ) is continued
to 11/20/2017, the date for defendant Escamilla's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 72 ).
Plaintiffs are ordered to file a single consolidated response of no more than 25 pages in
length to both motions. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 11/03/2017.(ajs) (jao).
(Entered: 11/03/2017)
11/06/2017 84 RESPONSE in Opposition re 72 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim as
to the Ninth, Tenth and Twelfth Causes of Action in Plaintiffs' First Amended
Complaint, 64 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Estate of Timothy
Gene Smith, Janie Richelle Sanders, Sandy Lynn Simmons, Wyatt Allen Gunner
Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Iredale, Eugene) (ajs). (Entered:
11/06/2017)
11/10/2017 85 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply re 68 by Dan Escamilla. (Attachments: # 1 Memo
of Points and Authorities Surreply in Further Opposition to Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion
to Substitute Successor in Interest)(Escamilla, Dan) Modified docket text on
11/13/2017 to link to motion (ajs). (Entered: 11/10/2017)
11/15/2017 86 MINUTE ORDER: Defendant Dan Escamillas Motion for Leave to File Surreply
(ECF No. 85) is granted. Defendant Dan Escamilla may file a surreply on or before
November 17, 2017. (no document attached) (smr) (Entered: 11/15/2017)
11/15/2017 87 SUR−REPLY − re 81 Reply to Response to Motion,, by Plaintiffs to Substitute Wyatt
Allen Gunner Smith as Successor in Interest to the Estate of Timothy Gene Smith filed
by Dan Escamilla. (Escamilla, Dan) (ajs). (Entered: 11/15/2017)
01/18/2018 88 Amended DECLARATION re 68 Ex Parte MOTION to Substitute Party Janie
Successor−in−Interest to the Estate of Timothy Gene Smith AMENDED
DECLARATION OF WYATT ALLEN GUNNER SMITH by Plaintiffs Estate of Timothy
Gene Smith, Janie Richelle Sanders, Sandy Lynn Simmons, Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith.
(Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Green, Donald) (ajs). Modified docket text on
1/22/2018 to add "Amended" (ajs). (Entered: 01/18/2018)
01/18/2018 89 MOTION for Leave to File Second Surreply by Dan Escamilla. (Escamilla, Dan) (ajs).
(Entered: 01/18/2018)
01/19/2018 90 Amended DECLARATION re 68 Ex Parte MOTION to Substitute Party Janie
Successor−in−Interest to the Estate of Timothy Gene Smith AMENDED
DECLARATION OF WYATT ALLEN GUNNER SMITH (with Exhibits) by Plaintiffs
Allen Gunner Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Green, Donald) Modified
docket text on 1/22/2018 to add "Amended" (ajs). (Entered: 01/19/2018)
01/23/2018 91 MINUTE ORDER: On October 17, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Substitute Party
Janie Richelle Sanders for Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith as Successor−in−Interest to the
Estate of Timothy Gene Smith and to Appoint Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith as
Successor−in−Interest to the Estate of Timothy Gene Smith (ECF No. 68), and
attached the Declaration of Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith (ECF No. 68−2). On January
18, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Declaration of Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith (ECF
No. 88). On January 19, 2018 Defendant Dan Escamilla filed a Motion for Leave to
File a Second Surreply addressing the Amended Declaration. (ECF No. 89). Defendant
Escamilla may file a second surreply on or before January 26, 2018. (no document
attached) (smr) (Entered: 01/23/2018)
01/24/2018 92 NOTICE of Unavailability of Counsel by Scott Holslag, San Diego, City of, Shelley
Zimmerman (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Sweda, Casey) (ajs). (Entered:
01/24/2018)
01/25/2018 93 Second SUR−REPLY − re 68 Ex Parte MOTION to Substitute Party Janie Richelle
Successor−in−Interest to the Estate of Timothy Gene Smith Second Surreply in
Opposition filed by Dan Escamilla. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Order of the U.S. Dist.
Court for the Eastern Dist. of Califonria in the case of Cooley v. City of
Vallejo)(Escamilla, Dan) Modified docket on 1/26/2018 to add "Second" to title (ajs).
(Entered: 01/25/2018)
02/22/2018 94 NOTICE of Disassociation of Counsel by Natalie Ann Macey (Attachments: # 1 Proof
of Service)(Obra−White, Bethsaida) (ajs). (Entered: 02/22/2018)
02/28/2018 95 ORDER: (1) Plaintiffs' Motion for Order to Substitute Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith for
Janie Richelle Sanders and to Appoint Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith as Successor in
Interest to the Estate of Timothy Gene Smith (ECF No. 68 ) is Granted; (2) Macey's
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 64 ) is Denied; (3) Escamilla's
Motion to Dismiss the Ninth, Tenth, and Twelfth Causes of Action Against Defendant
Escamilla (ECF No. 72 ) is Granted in that Plaintiffs' tenth and twelfth causes of action
against Escamilla are Dismissed and Denied in all other respects; and (4) Plaintiffs
shall file a second amended complaint that complies with this Order on or before
03/16/2018. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 02/28/2018. (ajs) (Entered:
02/28/2018)
03/09/2018 96 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT with Jury Demand Second Amended Complaint
against Does 1−50, Dan Escamilla, Scott Holslag, Legal Service Bureau, Inc., Natalie
Ann Macey, San Diego, City of, filed by Janie Richelle Sanders, Estate of Timothy
Gene Smith, Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith, Sandy Lynn Simmons. (Attachments: # 1
Proof of Service) (Iredale, Eugene) Modified docket text on 3/12/2018 to add 'Second'
(ajs). (Entered: 03/09/2018)
03/15/2018 97 Summons Issued on Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 96 ).
it in accordance with Rule 4, Fed.R.Civ.P and LR 4.1. (ajs) (Entered: 03/15/2018)
03/23/2018 98 Defendant NATALIE ANN MACEY dba MACEY BAIL BONDS ANSWER to 96
Amended Complaint, Answer to 2nd Amended Complaint by Natalie Ann
Macey.(Obra−White, Bethsaida) QC mailer sent re: missing proof of service (ajs).
(Entered: 03/23/2018)
03/23/2018 99 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (or for Summary Judgment in the
Alternative) by Scott Holslag, San Diego, City of. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points
and Authorities, # 2 Declaration of Pamela C. Chalk (Unsealed), # 3 Notice of
Lodgment (Unsealed), # 4 Request for Judicial Notice, # 5 Exhibit 39)(Chalk, Pamela)
(ajs). (Entered: 03/23/2018)
03/23/2018 100 MOTION to File Documents Under Seal (With attachments)(Chalk, Pamela)(mxn).
(Entered: 03/23/2018)
03/23/2018 101 SEALED LODGED Proposed Document re: 100 MOTION to File Documents Under
Seal. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Seal is granted. (With
attachments)(Chalk, Pamela)(mxn). Modified on 8/3/2018 to note that Motion to Seal
denied per 126 Order (rmc). (Entered: 03/23/2018)
03/26/2018 102 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Natalie Ann Macey re 98 Answer to Amended
Complaint (2nd Amended Complaint) (Obra−White, Bethsaida) (ajs). (Entered:
03/26/2018)
03/26/2018 103 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Scott Holslag, San Diego, City of re 100 MOTION
to File Documents Under Seal, 101 Sealed Lodged Proposed Document, 99 MOTION
to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (or for Summary Judgment in the Alternative)
(Certificate of Service of Dan Andrews) (Chalk, Pamela) (ajs). (Entered: 03/26/2018)
03/26/2018 104 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Scott Holslag, San Diego, City of re 100 MOTION
to File Documents Under Seal, 101 Sealed Lodged Proposed Document, 99 MOTION
to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (or for Summary Judgment in the Alternative)
(of Pamela Chalk) (Chalk, Pamela)(ajs). (Entered: 03/26/2018)
03/26/2018 105 RESPONSE in Opposition re 100 MOTION to File Documents Under Seal filed by
Estate of Timothy Gene Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Yoo, Julia) (ajs).
(Entered: 03/26/2018)
03/27/2018 106 NOTICE of Erratum by Estate of Timothy Gene Smith, Janie Richelle Sanders, Sandy
Lynn Simmons, Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith re 105 Response in Opposition to Motion
(Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Yoo, Julia) (ajs). (Entered: 03/27/2018)
03/29/2018 107 Ex Parte MOTION to Continue Hearing Date and Request for Setting of a Status
Conference by Estate of Timothy Gene Smith, Janie Richelle Sanders, Sandy Lynn
Simmons, Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proof of
Service)(Iredale, Eugene) (rmc). (Entered: 03/29/2018)
03/30/2018 108 NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th Circuit as to 95 Order, by Dan Escamilla. Fee not
paid. (Attachments: # 1 Representation Statement)(Escamilla, Dan). (Modified on
3/30/2018: Corrected fee status. Edited docket text re attachment.) (akr). (Entered:
03/30/2018)
03/30/2018 109 USCA Case Number 18−55429 for 108 Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit filed by Dan
Escamilla. (akr) (Entered: 03/30/2018)
03/30/2018 110 USCA Time Schedule Order as to 108 Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit filed by Dan
Escamilla. (akr) (Entered: 03/30/2018)
04/03/2018 111 NOTICE of Opposition − originally filed as RESPONSE in Opposition re 107 Ex
Parte MOTION to Continue Hearing Date and Request for Setting of a Status
Conference filed by Scott Holslag, San Diego, City of. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of
Service)(Sweda, Casey) Modified docket text on 04/05/2018 to correct event(ajs).
(Entered: 04/03/2018)
04/04/2018 112 RESPONSE in Opposition re 107 Ex Parte MOTION to Continue Hearing Date and
Request for Setting of a Status Conference filed by Scott Holslag, San Diego, City of.
(Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Sweda, Casey) (ajs). (Entered: 04/04/2018)
04/05/2018 113 MINUTE ORDER: Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Motion to Continue Hearing Date and Request
for Setting of a Status Conference (ECF No. 107 ) is GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs' request for a status conference is DENIED. The hearing
date for Defendants City of San Diego and Scott Holslag's Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint and Request for Related Relief (ECF No. 99 )
("Defendants' Motion") is CONTINUED. Plaintiffs shall file a Response to
Defendants' Motion on or before June 11, 2018. Defendants City of San Diego and
Scott Holslag shall file a Reply to Plaintiffs' Response on or before July 2, 2018. The
Court will hear oral argument on Defendants' Motion on July 19, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.
Judge William Q. Hayes.(no document attached) (ajs) (Entered: 04/05/2018)
04/16/2018 114 ORDER of USCA as to 108 Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit filed by Dan Escamilla.
This appeal challenges the USDC's February 28, 2018 order denying appellant's
motion to strike the ninth cause of action under California's anti−SLAPP statute. A
review of the USCA's docket reflects that the filing and docketing fees for this appeal
remain due. Within 21 days after the date of this order, appellant shall pay to the
USDC the $505.00 filing and docketing fees for this appeal and file in the USCA proof
of such payment or file in the USCA a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Failure to
pay the fees or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis shall result in the automatic
dismissal of the appeal by the Clerk for failure to prosecute. The Clerk shall serve a
Form 4 financial affidavit on appellant. The briefing schedule established on March
30, 2018 remains in effect. The filing of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis will
stay the briefing schedule pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 27−11. (akr) (Entered:
04/16/2018)
05/02/2018 115 NOTICE Defendants' Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice by Scott Holslag, San
Diego, City of, Shelley Zimmerman re 99 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a
Claim (or for Summary Judgment in the Alternative) (Attachments: # 1 Proof of
Service)(Chalk, Pamela) QC reminder email sent re: wrong event selected (ajs).
(Entered: 05/02/2018)
05/15/2018 116 USCA Appeal Fees received ($ 505 receipt number CAS100809) re 108 Notice of
Appeal to the 9th Circuit filed by Dan Escamilla. (USCA Case Number 18−55429.
Notice of fee payment electronically transmitted to the US Court of Appeals.) (akr)
(Entered: 05/15/2018)
05/31/2018 117 MOTION to Stay by Dan Escamilla. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and
Authorities In Support of Motion for Leave to File Answer Out of Time and for a Stay
Pending Appeal or, in the Alternative, for an Extension of Time to Answer Plaintiff's
Second Amended Complaint)(Escamilla, Dan) (ajs). Added MOTION for Extension of
Time to File Answer on 7/11/2018 (ajs). (Entered: 05/31/2018)
06/11/2018 118 RESPONSE in Opposition re 99 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (or
for Summary Judgment in the Alternative) filed by Estate of Timothy Gene Smith,
Janie Richelle Sanders, Sandy Lynn Simmons, Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Plaintiffs' Objections to Defendants'
Exhibits filed in support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, # 4 Proof of
Service)(Iredale, Eugene) (ajs). (Entered: 06/11/2018)
07/02/2018 119 RESPONSE in Opposition re 99 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (or
for Summary Judgment in the Alternative) filed by Scott Holslag, San Diego, City of,
Shelley Zimmerman. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Josh Odom, # 2 Supplement, # 3
Proof of Service)(Sweda, Casey) (jpp). (Entered: 07/02/2018)
07/05/2018 120 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 99 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
(or for Summary Judgment in the Alternative) : Motion Hearing set for 7/19/2018
10:30 AM in Courtroom 14B before Judge William Q. Hayes. (All non−registered
users served via U.S. Mail Service)(no document attached) (smr) (Entered:
07/05/2018)
07/11/2018 121 ORDER: Escamilla's request for a stay is Denied.(ECF No. 117 ). Escamilla's request
for an extension of time to respond to the SAC is Granted.(ECF No. 117 ). Escamilla
shall respond to the SAC on or before 07/27/2018. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes
on 07/11/2018. (ajs) (Entered: 07/11/2018)
07/18/2018 122 NOTICE of Change of Hearing on Motion 99 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State
a Claim (or for Summary Judgment in the Alternative) : Motion Hearing set for
7/19/2018 is vacated and reset to 7/24/2018 10:00 AM in Courtroom 14B before Judge
William Q. Hayes. (All non−registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(no
07/24/2018 123 Minute Order. for proceedings held before Judge William Q. Hayes:Motion Hearing
held on 7/24/2018. re 99 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (or for
Summary Judgment in the Alternative) filed by Scott Holslag, San Diego, City of −
Motions taken under submission. Court to prepare order. (Court Reporter Melinda
Setterman). (Plaintiffs Attorneys Eugene Iredale and Donald Green).(Defense
Attorneys Casey Sweda, Lawrence Zucker, and Bethsaida Obra−White). (no document
attached) (bjb) (Entered: 07/24/2018)
Appellant's motion for a stay pending appeal is denied. Briefing schedule issued.
Appellees' motion to dismiss will be addressed by separate order. (akr) (Entered:
07/25/2018)
07/27/2018 125 ANSWER to 96 Amended Complaint, by Dan Escamilla.(Escamilla, Dan) (ajs).
(Entered: 07/27/2018)
08/03/2018 126 ORDER. The Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint and Request
for Related Relief (ECF No. 99 ) and the Motion to File Documents Under Seal (ECF
No. 100 ) are both denied. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 8/3/2018. (rmc)
(Entered: 08/03/2018)
Appellees' motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction is denied without
prejudice to renewing the arguments in the answering brief. Briefing schedule issued.
(akr) (Entered: 09/18/2018)
10/17/2018 128 ANSWER to 96 Amended Complaint, Second Amended by Scott Holslag, Shelley
Zimmerman, San Diego, City of. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Sweda,
Casey)(ajs). (Entered: 10/17/2018)
10/29/2018 129 NOTICE AND ORDER for Early Neutral Evaluation and Case Management
Conference. Early Neutral Evaluation and Case Management Conference set for
11/29/2018 at 09:30 a.m. in the chambers of Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin.
Joint Discovery Plan due no later than seven days prior to the conference. Signed by
Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 10/29/2018.(ajs) (Entered: 10/30/2018)
11/08/2018 130 ORDER OF TRANSFER. Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin is no longer assigned.
Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg for all further proceedings.
Pending hearings previously set before the original Judge have been transferred to the
newly assigned Judge. The new case number is 16−cv−2989−WQH−MSB. Signed by
Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 11/08/2018.(ajs) (Entered: 11/08/2018)
11/21/2018 131 JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN by Estate of Timothy Gene Smith, Janie Richelle
Sanders, Sandy Lynn Simmons, Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith (Attachments: # 1 Proof of
Service)(Iredale, Eugene) (ajs). (Entered: 11/21/2018)
11/21/2018 132 Joint MOTION Relief From Personal Appearance by Natalie Ann Macey dba Macey
Bail Bonds at Early Netural Evaluation by Natalie Ann Macey. (Attachments: # 1
Proof of Service)(Obra−White, Bethsaida) (ajs). (Entered: 11/21/2018)
11/21/2018 133 Ex Parte MOTION Relief from Personal Appearance by Sandy Lynn Simmons at
Early Neutral Evaluation Conference by Sandy Lynn Simmons. (Attachments: # 1
Declaration of Donald A. Green, # 2 Declaration of Terri DeGraffenreid
Brattin)(Green, Donald) (ajs). (Entered: 11/21/2018)
11/24/2018 134 Ex Parte MOTION to Excuse Appearance of Dan Escamilla at Early Neutral
Evaluation Conference, on November 29, 2018 by Dan Escamilla. (Attachments: # 1
Declaration of Dan Escamilla)(Escamilla, Dan) (ajs). (Entered: 11/24/2018)
11/26/2018 135 ORDER Granting 132 Joint Motion for Relief from Personal Appearance by Natalie
Ann Macey d/b/a Macey Bail Bonds at Early Neutral Evaluation. Signed by Magistrate
Judge Michael S. Berg on 11/26/2018. (ajs) (Entered: 11/26/2018)
11/26/2018 136 NOTICE of Hearing: The hearing previously set before Judge Dembin has been reset
before Judge Berg. Case Management Conference set for 11/29/2018 09:30 AM before
Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg. Early Neutral Evaluation set for 11/29/2018 09:30
AM before Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg. (no document attached) (rla) (Entered:
11/26/2018)
11/26/2018 137 DECLARATION re 134 Ex Parte MOTION to Excuse Appearance of Dan Escamilla
at Early Neutral Evaluation Conference, on November 29, 2018 Supplemental
Declaration by Defendant Dan Escamilla. (Escamilla, Dan) (ajs). (Entered:
11/26/2018)
11/27/2018 138 ORDER Granting 133 Ex Parte Motion for Relief from Personal Appearance at Early
Neutral Evaluation Conference by Sandy Lynn Simmons. Signed by Magistrate Judge
Michael S. Berg on 11/27/2018. (ajs) (Entered: 11/27/2018)
11/28/2018 139 ORDER Granting 134 Ex Parte Motion for Relief from Personal Appearance at Early
Neutral Evaluation Conference by Defendant Dan Escamilla. Signed by Magistrate
11/29/2018 141 Minute Order for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg: An Early
Neutral Evaluation Conference was held on 11/29/2018. The case did not settle. Case
Management Conference was held on 11/29/2018. Order to follow. Signed by
Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg on 11/30/2018. (Plaintiff Attorney Donald A.
Green; Eugene G. Iredale). (Defendant Attorney Dan Escamilla; Casey M. Sweda;
Lawrence S. Zucker; Tia Ramirez; Dan Andrews). (ajs) (Entered: 11/30/2018)
11/30/2018 140 ***DOCUMENT WITHDRAWN per (ECF No. 142 )*** NOTICE of Appearance of
Counsel by Casey M. Sweda on behalf of Scott Holslag, San Diego, City of, Shelley
Zimmerman (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Sweda, Casey) QC mailer sent re:
atty must file their own notice of appearance. Atty to withdraw and refile (ajs).
Modified on 12/3/2018 to withdraw document (ajs). (Entered: 11/30/2018)
12/03/2018 142 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF DOCUMENT by Scott Holslag, Shelley
Zimmerman, San Diego, City of re 140 Notice of Appearance, filed by Shelley
Zimmerman, Scott Holslag, San Diego, City of . (Attachments: # 1 Proof of
Service)(Sweda, Casey) (ajs). (Entered: 12/03/2018)
12/03/2018 143 NOTICE of Appearance by Tia Forney Ramirez on behalf of Scott Holslag, San
Diego, City of (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Ramirez, Tia)Attorney Tia Forney
Ramirez added to party Scott Holslag(pty:dft), Attorney Tia Forney Ramirez added to
party San Diego, City of(pty:dft) (ajs). (Entered: 12/03/2018)
12/04/2018 144 SCHEDULING ORDER Regulating Discovery and Other Pre−Trial Proceedings:
Case Management Conference was held on 11/29/2018. Mandatory Settlement
Conference set for 02/05/2020 at 09:30 a.m. in the chambers of Magistrate Judge
Michael S. Berg. Counsel shall file their Memoranda of Contentions of Fact and Law
and take any other action required by Local Rule 16.1(f)(2) by 02/21/2020. In jury trial
cases before Judge Hayes, neither party is required to file Memoranda of Contentions
of Fact and Law. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 03/13/2020. Final Pretrial Conference
set for 03/20/2020 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 14B before Judge William Q. Hayes.
Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg on 12/04/2018.(ajs) (Entered:
12/04/2018)
12/27/2018 145 Ex Parte MOTION to Continue Deadline for Protective Order by Scott Holslag, San
Diego, City of. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proof of Service)(Ramirez, Tia)
(ajs). (Entered: 12/27/2018)
12/28/2018 146 ORDER Granting in Part Defendants' Ex Parte Motion to Continue the Deadline to
File a Joint Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 145 ). The deadline to file a Joint
Motion for a Protective Order is continued until 01/18/2019. Signed by Magistrate
01/18/2019 147 Joint MOTION for Protective Order by Scott Holslag, San Diego, City of.
(Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Ramirez, Tia) (ajs). (Entered: 01/18/2019)
01/23/2019 148 Amended Joint MOTION for Protective Order by Scott Holslag, San Diego, City of.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proof of Service)(Ramirez, Tia) Modified on
1/24/2019 to add 'Joint' (ajs). (Entered: 01/23/2019)
01/25/2019 149 ORDER Granting Joint Motion for Protective Order (ECF Nos. 147 , 148 ). Signed by
Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg on 01/25/2019. (ajs) (Entered: 01/25/2019)
01/28/2019 150 ***DOCUMENT WITHDRAWN per (ECF No. 154 )*** Ex Parte MOTION for
Leave to File Third Amended Complaint by Estate of Timothy Gene Smith, Sandy
Lynn Simmons, Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Eugene
Iredale, # 2 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint (redlined version), # 3 Proof
of Service)(Iredale, Eugene)(ajs). Modified on 1/30/2019 to withdraw & term motion
(ajs). (Entered: 01/28/2019)
01/28/2019 151 NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY by Dan Escamilla (Escamilla, Dan) (ajs). (Entered:
01/28/2019)
01/29/2019 152 ***DOCUMENT WITHDRAWN per (ECF No. 154 )*** NOTICE of Lodgment by
Allen Gunner Smith re 150 Ex Parte MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended
Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Proof of Service)(Iredale, Eugene) QC
mailer sent re: incomplete pleading. Atty to withdraw ECF Nos. 150 & 152 and refile
as one complete pleading (ajs). Modified on 1/30/2019 to withdraw document (ajs).
(Entered: 01/29/2019)
01/30/2019 153 NOTICE of Intent to Oppose by Scott Holslag, San Diego, City of re 150 Ex Parte
MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Proof of
Service)(Ramirez, Tia) (ajs). (Entered: 01/30/2019)
01/30/2019 154 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF DOCUMENT by Estate of Timothy Gene Smith,
Sandy Lynn Simmons, Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith re 152 Notice of Lodgment, filed by
Estate of Timothy Gene Smith, Sandy Lynn Simmons, Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith,
Janie Richelle Sanders, 150 Ex Parte MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended
Complaint filed by Estate of Timothy Gene Smith, Sandy Lynn Simmons, Wyatt Allen
Gunner Smith . (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Iredale, Eugene) (ajs). (Entered:
01/30/2019)
01/30/2019 155 Ex Parte MOTION for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint by Estate of
Timothy Gene Smith, Sandy Lynn Simmons, Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith.
(Attachments: # 1 Declaration Eugene Iredale, # 2 Exhibit Proposed Third Amended
Complaint (redlined), # 3 Proof of Service)(Iredale, Eugene) (ajs). (Entered:
01/30/2019)
01/31/2019 156 MINUTE ORDER: Any opposition to Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File
Third Amended Complaint 155 shall be filed by February 8, 2019. Any reply shall be
filed by February 15, 2019 (no document attached) (smr) (Entered: 01/31/2019)
02/08/2019 157 NON Opposition re 155 Ex Parte MOTION for Leave to File a Third Amended
Complaint filed by Scott Holslag, San Diego, City of, Shelley Zimmerman.
(Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Ramirez, Tia) (ag). (Entered: 02/08/2019)
02/08/2019 158 RESPONSE in Opposition re 155 Ex Parte MOTION for Leave to File a Third
Amended Complaint filed by Dan Escamilla. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Letter to
Plaintiffs Attorneys Iredale and Green, # 2 Declaration Declaration of Dan
Escamilla)(Escamilla, Dan) (ag). (Entered: 02/08/2019)
02/15/2019 159 REPLY to Response to Motion re 155 Ex Parte MOTION for Leave to File a Third
Amended Complaint filed by Estate of Timothy Gene Smith, Sandy Lynn Simmons,
Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Eugene Iredale, # 2 Proof
of Service)(Jun, Grace) (ag). (Entered: 02/15/2019)
The court is of the unanimous opinion that the facts and legal arguments are
adequately presented in the briefs and record and the decisional process would not be
significantly aided by oral argument. This case shall be submitted on the briefs and
record, without oral argument, on Monday, March 4, 2019, in Pasadena, California.
(akr) (Entered: 02/21/2019)
03/01/2019 161 ORDER: Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint
(ECF No. 155 ) is granted. Plaintiffs may file the proposed Third Amended Complaint
(ECF No. 155−2) within 10 days of the entry of this Order. Signed by Judge William
Q. Hayes on 2/28/2019. (ag) (Entered: 03/01/2019)
03/01/2019 162 Third AMENDED COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against Dan Escamilla, Scott
Holslag, Legal Service Bureau, Inc., Natalie Ann Macey, San Diego, City of, David
Brecht, Ismael Soto, filed by Janie Richelle Sanders, Estate of Timothy Gene Smith,
Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith, Sandy Lynn Simmons. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of
Service)New Summons Requested. (Iredale, Eugene) (ag). (Entered: 03/01/2019)
03/04/2019 163 Summons Issued on Third Amended Complaint.
it in accordance with Rule 4, Fed.R.Civ.P and LR 4.1. (ag) (Entered: 03/04/2019)
03/15/2019 164 ANSWER to 162 Third Amended Complaint by Natalie Ann Macey. (Attachments: #
1 Proof of Service)(Obra−White, Bethsaida) (ag). (Entered: 03/15/2019)
03/15/2019 165 ANSWER to 162 Third Amended Complaint by Scott Holslag, San Diego, City of,
David Brecht. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Sweda, Casey)Attorney Casey M.
Sweda added to party David Brecht(pty:dft) (ag). (Entered: 03/15/2019)
03/16/2019 166 Ex Parte MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to Plaintiff's Third
Amended Complaint by Dan Escamilla. (Attachments: # 1 PROPOSED
ORDER)(Escamilla, Dan) (ag). (Entered: 03/16/2019)
03/18/2019 167 MINUTE ORDER: Defendant Escamilla's Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File his
Response to Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint Out−of−Time (ECF No. 166 ) is
Granted. Defendant shall file his responsive document by 3/21/2019. (no document
attached) (ajs) (Entered: 03/18/2019)
03/21/2019 168 ANSWER to 162 Amended Complaint, by Dan Escamilla.(Escamilla, Dan) (Entered:
03/21/2019)
04/04/2019 169 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Estate of Timothy Gene Smith, Janie Richelle
Sanders, Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith, Sandy Lynn Simmons. David Brecht served.
(Iredale, Eugene) (ag). (Entered: 04/04/2019)
04/04/2019 170 ORDER Setting Telephonic Case Management Conference. A telephonic
attorneys−only Case Management Conference is set for 4/23/2019 at 9:00 AM before
Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg on
4/4/2019.(ag) (Entered: 04/04/2019)
04/16/2019 171 ORDER of USCA as to 108 Notice of Appeal to the 9th Circuit filed by Dan
Escamilla. The Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Appellees' Answering Brief
is denied. (akr) (Entered: 04/16/2019)
04/23/2019 172 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg: (T)Case
Management Conference was held on 4/23/2019. Order to follow. (Plaintiff Attorney
Eugene G. Iredale). (Defendant Attorneys Bethsaida C. Obra−White; Casey M.
Sweda). (All non−registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(no document
attached) (dxm) (Entered: 04/24/2019)
04/24/2019 173 ORDER SETTING TELEPHONIC CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. The
Court sets a telephonic attorneys−only Case Management Conference for June 3,
2019, at 9:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg. Plaintiffs counsel is to
arrange and initiate the conference call. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg
on 4/24/2019.(sjm) (Entered: 04/24/2019)
Escamilla. Appellant's petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc is denied. (akr)
(Entered: 05/03/2019)
05/13/2019 175 MANDATE of USCA affirming in part and dismissing in part as to 108 Notice of
Appeal to the 9th Circuit filed by Dan Escamilla. (akr) (Entered: 05/14/2019)
Escamilla. Appellees' motion to transfer consideration of Appellees' attorneys' fees to
the USDC is granted. (akr) (Entered: 05/20/2019)
Management Conference was held on 6/3/2019. Order to follow. (Plaintiff Attorney
Eugene G. Iredale). (Defendant Attorneys Dan Escamilla, Bethsaida C. Obra−White,
Casey M. Sweda). (no document attached) (dxm) (Entered: 06/03/2019)
06/03/2019 178 ORDER Setting Telephonic Case Management Conference. The Court sets a
telephonic attorney−only Case Management Conference for 9/3/2019 at 9:00 AM
before Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg
on 6/3/2019.(ag) (Entered: 06/03/2019)
06/03/2019 179 Ex Parte MOTION for Service by Publication for Defendant Ismael Soto by Estate of
Gunner Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4,
# 5 Proof of Service)(Iredale, Eugene) (ag). (Entered: 06/03/2019)
06/03/2019 180 NOTICE of Intent to seek Attorneys' Fees for Interlocutory Appeal by Estate of
Gunner Smith (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Iredale, Eugene) (ag). (Entered:
06/03/2019)
06/11/2019 181 ORDER: Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Motion for Service of Summons by Publication for
Defendant Ismael Soto (ECF No. 179 ) is denied. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes
on 6/11/2019. (ag) (Entered: 06/11/2019)
06/18/2019 182 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct Scheduling Order by Estate of Timothy Gene
Smith, Janie Richelle Sanders, Sandy Lynn Simmons, Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith.
(Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proof of Service)(Iredale, Eugene) (ag). (Entered:
06/18/2019)
06/20/2019 183 ORDER Granting 182 Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. Signed by
Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg on 6/20/2019. (ag) (Entered: 06/20/2019)
06/25/2019 184 Joint MOTION for leave to take deposition of Prisoner Janie Richelle Sanders
Stipulated Motion for Leave to Take Deposition of Prisoner Janie Richelle Sanders
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 30(A)(2)(B) by David Brecht,
Scott Holslag, San Diego, City of. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proof of
Service)(Sweda, Casey) (tcf). (Entered: 06/25/2019)
06/26/2019 185 ORDER Granting Motion for Leave to Take Deposition of Prisoner Janie Richelle
Sanders. (ECF No. 184 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg on 6/26/2019.
(tcf) (jao). (Entered: 06/26/2019)
07/03/2019 186 Ex Parte MOTION for Extension of Time for Service of Process as to Defendant
Ismael Soto by Estate of Timothy Gene Smith, Janie Richelle Sanders, Sandy Lynn
Simmons, Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proof of
Service)(Iredale, Eugene) (ag). (Entered: 07/03/2019)
07/08/2019 187 MINUTE ORDER: Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for Extension of Time for Service of
Process as to Defendant Ismael Soto (ECF No. 186 ) is granted. Plaintiff shall serve
Defendant Ismael Soto by 09/02/2019. (no document attached) (ajs) (Entered:
07/08/2019)
08/16/2019 188 Joint MOTION for Determination of Discovery Dispute by Estate of Timothy Gene
Smith, Janie Richelle Sanders, Sandy Lynn Simmons, Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith.
(Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Proof of
08/30/2019 189 Ex Parte MOTION for Service by Publication as to Defendant Ismael Soto by Estate
of Timothy Gene Smith, Sandy Lynn Simmons, Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith.
(Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities, # 2 Declaration of Donald A.
Green, # 3 Exhibit A − Decl of Sonny Jaramillo 6−3−2019, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit
C, # 6 Exhibit D − Decl of Sonny Jaramillo 7−3−2019, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F, #
9 Exhibit G − Decl of Eugene Iredale 7−3−2019)(Green, Donald) (ag). (Entered:
08/30/2019)
Management Conference was held on 9/3/2019. (Plaintiff Attorney Donald A. Green).
(Defendant Attorneys Bethsaida C. Obra−White; Casey M. Sweeda; Dan Escamilla
(pro se)). (no document attached) (dxm) (Entered: 09/03/2019)
09/04/2019 191 ORDER: Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Motion for Alternative Service of Summons as to
Defendant Ismael Soto (ECF No. 189 ) is denied without prejudice. Plaintiffs'
alternative request for additional time to attempt service on Ismael Soto (ECF No. 189
−2 13) is granted. Plaintiffs shall serve Defendant Ismael Soto on or before November
1, 2019. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 9/4/2019. (tcf) (jao). (Entered:
09/04/2019)
09/09/2019 192 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Fact and Expert
Discovery Dates by David Brecht, Scott Holslag, San Diego, City of. (Attachments: #
1 Proof of Service)(Sweda, Casey) (ag). (Entered: 09/09/2019)
09/11/2019 193 ORDER Granting Joint Motion to Continue. (ECF No. 192 ) The Memorandum of
Contentions of Fact and Law is due by 7/2/2020. The Pretrial Order is due by
7/24/2020. The Final Pretrial Conference is set for 7/31/2020 at 11:00 AM before
Judge William Q. Hayes. The Mandatory Settlement Conference is set for 2/5/2020
09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg. Signed by Magistrate Judge
Michael S. Berg on 9/11/2019. (tcf) (jao). (Entered: 09/11/2019)
09/16/2019 194 Request for Extension of Time to File Motion to Compel Defendant Dan Escamilla's
Further Responses to Discovery by Defendant Natalie Ann Macey. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Obra−White, Bethsaida) (ag).
(Entered: 09/16/2019)
09/18/2019 195 ORDER Granting 194 Defendant's Unopposed Motion To Continue. The deadline to
file a motion to compel further responses from Dan Escamilla is extended until
October 16, 2019. All other deadlines and requirements remain as previously set.
Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg on 09/18/2019. (mme) (Entered:
09/19/2019)
10/01/2019 196 ORDER Setting Telephonic Discovery Conference. A telephonic Discovery
Conference is set for 10/3/2019 at 4:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg.
Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg on 10/1/2019.(ag) (Entered: 10/01/2019)
10/04/2019 197 ORDER Resetting Telephonic Discovery Conference. The telephonic Discovery
Conference set for 10/3/2019 is reset for 10/10/2019 at 4:30 PM before Magistrate
Judge Michael S. Berg. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg on
10/3/2019.(ag) (Entered: 10/04/2019)
10/10/2019 198 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg:
Discovery Hearing was held on 10/10/2019. Order to follow. (Plaintiff Attorneys
Donald A. Green; Eugene G. Iredale). (Defendant Attorneys Bethsaida C.
Obra−White; Casey M. Sweda; Dan Escamilla). (no document attached) (dxm)
(Entered: 10/11/2019)
10/11/2019 199 ORDER Regarding 188 Discovery Dispute. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael S.
Berg on 10/11/2019. (ag) (Entered: 10/11/2019)
11/01/2019 200 Ex Parte MOTION for Extension of Time for Service of Process as to Defendant
Ismael Soto by Estate of Timothy Gene Smith, Janie Richelle Sanders, Sandy Lynn
Simmons, Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Eugene
Iredale, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Proof of Service)(Iredale, Eugene) (ag). (Entered:
11/01/2019)
11/05/2019 201 ORDER: Plaintiffs' request for an additional 45 days to serve Defendant Ismael Soto is
granted. Plaintiffs shall serve Defendant Ismael Soto on or before 12/15/2019. Signed
by Judge William Q. Hayes on 11/5/2019. (ag) (Entered: 11/05/2019)
12/05/2019 202 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Estate of Timothy Gene Smith, Janie Richelle
Sanders, Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith, Sandy Lynn Simmons. Ismael Soto served.
(Iredale, Eugene) (ag). (Entered: 12/05/2019)
12/10/2019 203 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by David Brecht, Scott
Holslag, San Diego, City of, Shelley Zimmerman. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of
Service)(Sweda, Casey) (mme). (Entered: 12/10/2019)
12/10/2019 204 NOTICE of Disassociation of Counsel by David Brecht, Scott Holslag, San Diego,
City of, Shelley Zimmerman (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Sweda, Casey)
(mme). (Entered: 12/10/2019)
12/11/2019 205 ORDER: (1) Granting 203 Joint Motion To Extend Fact and Expert Discovery; and (2)
Issuing Amended Scheduling Order and Pretrial Proceedings. Final Pretrial
Conference set for 10/2/2020 11:00 AM before Judge William Q. Hayes. Mandatory
Settlement Conference set for 4/8/2020 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Michael S.
Berg. Memorandum of Contentions of Fact and Law due by 9/4/2020. Proposed
Pretrial Order due by 9/25/2020. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg on
12/11/2019. (mme) (Entered: 12/11/2019)
03/20/2020 206 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct 205 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to
Complete Discovery, Joint Motion to Modify Scheduling Order (doc. 205) by Estate of
Timothy Gene Smith, Sandy Lynn Simmons, Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith.
(Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Iredale, Eugene) (ag). (Entered: 03/20/2020)
03/23/2020 207 RESPONSE in Opposition re 206 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct 205 Order on
Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery, Joint Motion to Modify
Scheduling Order (doc. 205) filed by Dan Escamilla. (Escamilla, Dan) (Entered:
03/23/2020)
03/23/2020 208 ORDER Granting in Part 206 Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. A Mandatory
Settlement Conference is set for 7/8/2020 at 1:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Michael
S. Berg. Memorandum of Contentions of Fact and Law due is due by 12/4/2020. The
Proposed Pretrial Order is due by 12/30/2020. A Final Pretrial Conference is set for
1/8/2021 at 11:00 AM before Judge William Q. Hayes. Signed by Magistrate Judge
Michael S. Berg on 3/23/2020. (ag) Modified on 12/30/2020 to correct final pretrial
conference date (ag). (Entered: 03/23/2020)
06/26/2020 209 ORDER: Converting Mandatory Settlement Conference to Video Conference and
Issuing Updated Procedures. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg on
6/26/2020.(ag) (Entered: 06/26/2020)
07/01/2020 210 ANSWER to 162 Amended Complaint, by Legal Service Bureau, Inc..(Escamilla,
Dan) (Entered: 07/01/2020)
07/02/2020 211 Ex Parte MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Submitted by by
David Brecht, Scott Holslag, San Diego, City of. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration
Declaration of Casey Sweda, # 2 Proof of Service Proof of Service)(Sweda,
Casey)(ag). (Entered: 07/02/2020)
07/07/2020 212 RESPONSE in Opposition re 211 Ex Parte MOTION for Extension of Time to
Complete Discovery Submitted by filed by Estate of Timothy Gene Smith, Janie
Richelle Sanders, Sandy Lynn Simmons, Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith. (Attachments: #
1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7
Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Declaration of Eugene Iredale, # 10 Proof of
07/08/2020 213 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg:
Mandatory Settlement Conference via Zoom was held on 7/8/2020. The case did not
settle. Discovery Conference was held on 7/8/2020. Order to follow. (Plaintiff
Attorneys Donald A. Green; Eugene G. Iredale). (Defendant Attorneys Casey M.
Sweda; Lawrence S. Zucker; Dan Escamilla appearing pro se).(no document attached)
(dxm) (Entered: 07/08/2020)
07/09/2020 214 ORDER Granting Defendants' 211 Ex Parte Motion to Continue Fact Discovery
Deadline. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg on 7/8/2020. (ag) (Entered:
07/09/2020)
08/17/2020 215 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Dan Escamilla. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration
DECLARATION OF DAN ESCAMILLA, # 2 Statement of Facts DEFENDANT
DAN ESCAMILLAS SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OR ALTERNATIVELY, FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF
INDIVIDUAL ISSUES)(Escamilla, Dan) (Entered: 08/17/2020)
08/27/2020 216 MOTION Leave to File Exhibits on CD by David Brecht, Scott Holslag, San Diego,
City of. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Sweda, Casey) (jdt). (Entered:
08/27/2020)
08/28/2020 217 MOTION for Summary Judgment /Summary Adjudication by Scott Holslag, San
Diego, City of. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities, # 2 Declaration
Casey Sweda, # 3 Request for Judicial Notice, # 4 table of exhibits, # 5 Proof of
Service, # 6 separate statement, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11
Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17
Exhibit, # 36 Exhibit, # 37 Exhibit)(Sweda, Casey) (ag). (Entered: 08/28/2020)
08/28/2020 218 MOTION for Summary Judgment −Exhibit 4 to Motion for SJ by Scott Holslag, San
Diego, City of. (Sweda, Casey) (ag). (Entered: 08/28/2020)
08/28/2020 219 MOTION for Summary Judgment / Adjudication by Natalie Ann Macey.
(Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Summary
Judgment/Adjudication, # 2 Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary
Judgment/Adjudication, # 3 Declaration of Natalie Macey, # 4 Declaration of
Bethsaida C. Obra−White, # 5 Exhibit A, # 6 Exhibit B (part 1 of 2), # 7 Exhibit B
(part 2 of 2), # 8 Exhibit C, # 9 Exhibit D, # 10 Exhibit E, # 11 Exhibit F, # 12 Exhibit
G, # 13 Exhibit H, # 14 Exhibit I, # 15 Exhibit J, # 16 Exhibit K, # 17 Exhibit L, # 18
Exhibit M, # 19 Exhibit N, # 20 Exhibit O, # 21 Exhibit P, # 22 Exhibit Q, # 23
Exhibit R, # 24 Exhibit S, # 25 Exhibit T, # 26 Exhibit U, # 27 Exhibit V, # 28 Exhibit
W, # 29 Exhibit X, # 30 Exhibit Y)(Obra−White, Bethsaida) (ag). (Entered:
08/28/2020)
08/28/2020 220 MOTION for Summary Judgment /Summary Adjudication by David Brecht, San
Diego, City of. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities, # 2 Request for
Judicial Notice, # 3 SEPARATE STATEMENT, # 4 Declaration, # 5 Table of
Exhibits, # 6 Proof of Service, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11
Exhibit)(Sweda, Casey) (ag). (Entered: 08/28/2020)
08/28/2020 221 MOTION for Summary Judgment Exhibit J and K to MSJ by David Brecht, San
Diego, City of. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Sweda, Casey) (ag). (Entered:
08/28/2020)
08/31/2020 222 ORDER: Defendants are granted leave to file compact discs containing video files and
still−frame photographs from the videos in support of their Motion for Summary
Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment and reply to the Motion. Signed by Judge
William Q. Hayes on 8/31/2020. (ag) (Entered: 08/31/2020)
09/02/2020 223 Ex Parte MOTION for Extension of Time to File Oppositions to Defendants' Motions
for Summary Judgment by Estate of Timothy Gene Smith, Sandy Lynn Simmons,
Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Grace Jun, # 2 Proof of
09/03/2020 224 **DOCUMENT WITHDRAWN PER NOTICE 228 ** NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF
THAT THEY INTEND TO FILE AN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS EXPARTE
APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AN OPPOSITION TO
THEIR MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by David Brecht, Scott Holslag, San
Diego, City of re 223 Ex Parte MOTION for Extension of Time to File Oppositions to
Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Proof of
Service)(Sweda, Casey) Modified to Withdraw on 9/8/2020 (sjt). (Entered:
09/03/2020)
09/03/2020 225 RESPONSE in Opposition re 223 Ex Parte MOTION for Extension of Time to File
Oppositions to Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (Notice of Intention to
File) filed by Dan Escamilla. (Escamilla, Dan) (ag). (Entered: 09/03/2020)
09/03/2020 226 ORDER: Granting 223 Ex Parte Motion for Extension of Time to Oppositions to
Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs shall file their oppositions to
Defendants Motions for Summary Judgment on or before 10/05/2020. There will be no
oral argument unless requested by the Court. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on
9/3/2020. (ag) (Entered: 09/03/2020)
09/04/2020 227 OBJECTION by Natalie Ann Macey re 215 MOTION for Summary Judgment .
(Attachments: # 1 Declaration Order on Objection to Declaration)(Obra−White,
Bethsaida) (sjt). (Entered: 09/04/2020)
09/04/2020 228 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF DOCUMENT by Scott Holslag, San Diego, City
of, David Brecht re 224 Notice (Other), filed by Scott Holslag, David Brecht, San
Diego, City of . (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Sweda, Casey) (sjt). (Entered:
09/04/2020)
10/05/2020 229 RESPONSE in Opposition re 217 MOTION for Summary Judgment /Summary
Adjudication filed by Estate of Timothy Gene Smith, Sandy Lynn Simmons, Wyatt
Allen Gunner Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Opposition to Defs Separate Statement of
Facts, # 2 Declaration Eugene Iredale, # 3 Declaration Calvin Shayne Davidson, # 4
Declaration Roger Clark, # 5 Index of Exhibits, # 6 Exhibit 1, # 7 Exhibit 4, # 8
Exhibit 5, # 9 Exhibit 6, # 10 Exhibit 7, # 11 Exhibit 8, # 12 Exhibit 9, # 13 Exhibit
10, # 14 Proof of Service)(Yoo, Julia) (ag). (Entered: 10/05/2020)
10/05/2020 230 RESPONSE in Opposition re 220 MOTION for Summary Judgment /Summary
Adjudication filed by Estate of Timothy Gene Smith, Sandy Lynn Simmons, Wyatt
Allen Gunner Smith. (Yoo, Julia) (ag). (Entered: 10/05/2020)
10/06/2020 231 RESPONSE re 220 MOTION for Summary Judgment /Summary Adjudication
Response to Defendant Brecht's Separate Statement of Facts filed by Estate of
Timothy Gene Smith, Sandy Lynn Simmons, Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith. (Yoo, Julia)
(ag). (Entered: 10/06/2020)
10/06/2020 232 Ex Parte MOTION for Order Permitting Plaintiffs to Submit Physical Copies of Video
and Audio Exhibits in Opposition to Summary Judgment by Estate of Timothy Gene
Smith, Sandy Lynn Simmons, Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith. (Yoo, Julia) (ag). (Entered:
10/06/2020)
10/06/2020 233 NON Opposition re 219 MOTION for Summary Judgment / Adjudication NOTICE OF
NON−OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT NATALIE ANN MACEYS MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT filed by Natalie Ann Macey. (Obra−White, Bethsaida) (ag). (Entered:
10/06/2020)
10/06/2020 234 RESPONSE in Opposition re 215 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Estate of
Gunner Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Response to Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts,
# 2 Declaration of Eugene Iredale, # 3 Index of Exhibits, # 4 Exhibit 11, # 5 Exhibit
12, # 6 Exhibit 13, # 7 Exhibit 14, # 8 Exhibit 15, # 9 Exhibit 16, # 10 Exhibit 17, # 11
Exhibit 18, # 12 Exhibit 19, # 13 Exhibit 20, # 14 Proof of Service)(Iredale, Eugene)
(ag). (Entered: 10/06/2020)
10/06/2020 235 RESPONSE in Opposition re 219 MOTION for Summary Judgment / Adjudication
filed by Estate of Timothy Gene Smith, Janie Richelle Sanders, Sandy Lynn Simmons,
Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Response to Separate Statement of
Undisputed Facts, # 2 Plaintiffs' Separate Statement of Material Facts, # 3 Declaration
of Eugene Iredale, # 4 Index of Exhibits, # 5 Exhibit 11, # 6 Exhibit 12, # 7 Exhibit 13,
# 8 Exhibit 14, # 9 Exhibit 15, # 10 Exhibit 16, # 11 Exhibit 17, # 12 Exhibit 18, # 13
Exhibit 19, # 14 Exhibit 20, # 15 Proof of Service)(Iredale, Eugene) (ag). (Entered:
10/06/2020)
10/06/2020 236 Ex Parte MOTION To File One Day Late Their Oppositions to Defendants Natalie
Ann Maceys Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 219) and Dan Escamillas
motion for Summary Judgment (ECF no. 215) by Estate of Timothy Gene Smith, Janie
Richelle Sanders, Sandy Lynn Simmons, Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith. (Attachments: #
1 Declaration of Eugene Iredale, # 2 Proof of Service)(Iredale, Eugene) (ag). (Entered:
10/06/2020)
10/07/2020 237 RESPONSE in Opposition re 236 Ex Parte MOTION To File One Day Late Their
Oppositions to Defendants Natalie Ann Maceys Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF
No. 219) and Dan Escamillas motion for Summary Judgment (ECF no. 215) filed by
Natalie Ann Macey. (Obra−White, Bethsaida) (ag). (Entered: 10/07/2020)
10/07/2020 238 RESPONSE in Opposition re 236 Ex Parte MOTION To File One Day Late Their
Oppositions to Defendants Natalie Ann Maceys Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF
No. 219) and Dan Escamillas motion for Summary Judgment (ECF no. 215) filed by
Dan Escamilla. (Escamilla, Dan) (ag). (Entered: 10/07/2020)
10/08/2020 239 ORDER re 232 Plaintiffs are granted leave to file compact discs containing video and
audio files in support of their Oppositions to Defendant' Motions for Summary
Judgment. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 10/08/2020. (ag) (Entered:
10/08/2020)
10/08/2020 240 ORDER re 236 Plaintiffs are granted leave to file one day late their Oppositions to the
following Motions for Summary Judgment: Defendant Dan Escamilla's Motion for
Summary Judgment (ECF No. 215 ) and Defendant Natalie Ann Macey's Motion for
Summary Judgment (ECF No. 219 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant
Natalie Ann Macey is granted a one−day extension until 10/13/2020, to file any reply.
Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 10/08/2020. (ag) (Entered: 10/08/2020)
10/08/2020 241 MINUTE ENTRY: The Court will hear telephonic oral argument on Defendants'
Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 215 , 217 , 219 , 220 ) on Thursday,
November 12, 2020, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 14B before the Honorable William Q.
Hayes. All parties are directed to join on a conference call, then contact K. Sellars
(619−321−0238) at the time of the hearing.(no document attached) (ag) (Entered:
10/08/2020)
10/09/2020 242 Ex Parte MOTION for Extension of Time to File Defendants Reply to Opposition to
MSJ by Plaintiff by David Brecht, Scott Holslag, San Diego, City of. (Attachments: #
1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Proof of Service)(Sweda, Casey) (ag). (Entered: 10/09/2020)
10/09/2020 243 MINUTE ENTRY: For good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Ex
Parte Motion for Additional Time (ECF No. 242 ) is granted. The deadline for
Defendants City of San Diego, Scott Holslag, and David Brecht to file any replies in
support of their Motions for Summary Judgment is extended to October 13, 2020. (no
document attached) (ag) (Entered: 10/09/2020)
10/13/2020 244 REPLY − Other re 231 Response − Other, 220 MOTION for Summary Judgment
/Summary Adjudication, 230 Response in Opposition to Motion filed by David Brecht,
Scott Holslag, San Diego, City of. (Attachments: # 1 Opp to SSUMF, # 2 Proof of
Service, # 3 Exhibit Objection to Exhibits, # 4 Declaration Casey Sweda, # 5 Exhibit
A, # 6 Exhibit B, # 7 Exhibit C, # 8 Exhibit D)(Sweda, Casey) (ag). (Entered:
10/13/2020)
10/13/2020 245 REPLY to Response to Motion re 218 MOTION for Summary Judgment −Exhibit 4 to
Motion for SJ, 217 MOTION for Summary Judgment /Summary Adjudication filed by
David Brecht, Scott Holslag, San Diego, City of. (Attachments: # 1 Holslag & COSD's
Reply iso Pltfs Opp to SSUMF, # 2 Proof of Service POS_Defendants COSD &
Holslags POS iso Reply to Plts Opp to MSJ, # 3 Defendants Holslag, Brecht &
COSD's Objection to Exhibits, # 4 Declaration Dec of CAS iso Reply to Opp to MSJ
of Holslag, # 5 Exhibit A, # 6 Exhibit B, # 7 Exhibit C, # 8 Exhibit D)(Sweda, Casey)
(ag). (Entered: 10/13/2020)
10/13/2020 246 REPLY to Response to Motion re 219 MOTION for Summary Judgment /
Adjudication filed by Natalie Ann Macey. (Obra−White, Bethsaida) (ag). (Entered:
10/13/2020)
10/13/2020 247 REPLY − Other re 219 MOTION for Summary Judgment / Adjudication filed by
Natalie Ann Macey. (Attachments: # 1 Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's
Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts, # 2 Opposition to Plaintiffs' Separate
Statement of Material Facts, # 3 Objections to Plaintiffs' Evidence, # 4 Proof of
Service)(Obra−White, Bethsaida) (ag). (Entered: 10/13/2020)
10/29/2020 248 MINUTE ORDER: On August 31, 2020, the Court issued an Order granting leave for
Defendants Scott Holslag, David Brecht, and City of San Diego to file compact disc
exhibits in support of their Motions for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 222 ). The
docket does not reflect that Defendants have lodged any compact disc exhibits with the
Court. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants shall file any compact disc
exhibits and notices of lodgment on or before November 2, 2020. (no document
attached) (ag) (Entered: 10/29/2020)
11/05/2020 249 MINUTE ENTRY: The telephonic oral argument on Defendants' Motions for
Summary Judgment (See ECF No. 241 ) is vacated. The Court will hear in−person oral
argument on Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment on Thursday, November 12,
2020, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 14B before the Honorable William Q. Hayes. Any
request to appear telephonically may be made by motion. (no document attached) (ag)
(Entered: 11/05/2020)
11/12/2020 250 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge William Q. Hayes: Motion Hearing
held on 11/12/2020 re Motions for Summary Judgment. Attorney Iredale to file
additional briefing re legal authority by 11/30/2020. Response is due by 12/14/2020.
Court will issue a written ruling on the motions. (Court Reporter/ECR Melinda
Setterman). (Plaintiff Attorney Eugene Iredale). (Defendant Attorney Casey Sweda;
Dan Escamilla; Bethsaida Obra−White; Arezoo Jamshidi). (no document attached)
(kas) (Entered: 11/16/2020)
11/23/2020 251 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT (Motions for Summary
Judgment) held on 11/12/2020 before Judge William Q. Hayes. Court
Reporter/Transcriber: Melinda S. Setterman. Transcript may be viewed at the court
public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the
deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained
through PACER or the Court Reporter/Transcriber. If redaction is necessary, parties
have seven calendar days from the file date of the Transcript to E−File the Notice of
Intent to Request Redaction. The following deadlines would also apply if requesting
redaction: Redaction Request Statement due to Court Reporter/Transcriber
12/14/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 12/24/2020. Release of Transcript
Restriction set for 2/22/2021. (akr) (Entered: 11/23/2020)
11/30/2020 252 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING by Plaintiffs Estate of Timothy Gene Smith, Janie
Richelle Sanders, Sandy Lynn Simmons, Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith On The Civil
Conspiracy Cause Of Action. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Iredale, Eugene)
(ag). (Entered: 11/30/2020)
12/14/2020 253 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING by Defendant Natalie Ann Macey . (Attachments: # 1
Proof of Service)(Obra−White, Bethsaida) (ag). (Entered: 12/14/2020)
12/14/2020 254 RESPONSE in Support re 215 MOTION for Summary Judgment and to Plaintiff's
Supplement Brief on its Conspiracy Claim filed by Dan Escamilla. (Attachments: # 1
Proof of Service)(Escamilla, Dan) (ag). (Entered: 12/14/2020)
12/31/2020 255 ORDER granting 215 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in
part 217 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 219 Motion for Summary
Judgment; granting 220 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge William Q.
Hayes on 12/31/2020. (jmr) (jms). (Entered: 12/31/2020)
01/04/2021 256 ORDER: The Proposed Final Pretrial Conference Order is due by 3/25/2021. The Final
Pretrial Conference is set for 4/22/2021 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 14B before Judge
William Q. Hayes. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 1/4/2021.(ag) (Entered:
01/04/2021)
01/07/2021 257 NOTICE of Association of Counsel by David Brecht, Scott Holslag, San Diego, City
of, Shelley Zimmerman (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(McQuarrie,
Jacqueline)Attorney Jacqueline J. McQuarrie added to party David Brecht(pty:dft),
Attorney Jacqueline J. McQuarrie added to party Scott Holslag(pty:dft), Attorney
Jacqueline J. McQuarrie added to party San Diego, City of(pty:dft), Attorney
Jacqueline J. McQuarrie added to party Shelley Zimmerman(pty:dft) (ag). (Entered:
01/07/2021)
01/29/2021 258 NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th Circuit as to 255 Order by Scott Holslag. (Filing fee
$ 505 receipt number ACASDC−15301398.) (Notice of Appeal electronically
transmitted to the US Court of Appeals.) (Attachments: # 1 Appellant's Representation
Statement, # 2 Proof of Service)(Sweda, Casey). (Modified on 1/29/2021: Edited
docket text re linked Order.) (akr). (Entered: 01/29/2021)
01/29/2021 259 USCA Case Number 21−55073 for 258 Notice of Appeal to the 9th Circuit filed by
Scott Holslag. (akr) (Entered: 01/29/2021)
01/29/2021 260 USCA Time Schedule Order as to 258 Notice of Appeal to the 9th Circuit filed by
Scott Holslag. (akr) (Entered: 01/29/2021)
02/09/2021 261 ORDER of USCA as to 258 Notice of Appeal to the 9th Circuit filed by Scott Holslag.
In addition to all other issues the parties wish to raise in their briefs, the parties shall
address the basis for the USCA's jurisdiction over this appeal. The previously
established briefing schedule remains in effect. (akr) (Entered: 02/09/2021)
03/01/2021 262 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDERING FORM by San Diego, City of for
proceedings held on 7/24/2018; 11/12/2020 re 258 Notice of Appeal to the 9th Circuit.
(Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Sweda, Casey). (Modified on 3/1/2021: Corrected
docket text re designated date.) (akr). (Entered: 03/01/2021)
03/16/2021 263 Joint MOTION to Stay Action Pending Outcome of Defendants Interlocutory Appeal
by San Diego, City of. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities, # 2 Proof of
Service)(Sweda, Casey) (ag). (Entered: 03/16/2021)
03/18/2021 264 ORDER: The Joint Motion to Stay is granted. All deadlines and hearings currently set
in this case are vacated, and this action is stayed pending the outcome of Sergeant
Holslag's interlocutory appeal. The parties shall file a joint status report regarding the
appeal on or before 6/17/2021, and every 90 days thereafter. Signed by Judge William
Q. Hayes on 3/18/2021. (ag) (Entered: 03/18/2021)
05/19/2021 265 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT (Motions Hearing) for date of
7/24/2018 before Judge William Q. Hayes re 258 Notice of Appeal to the 9th Circuit.
Court Reporter/Transcriber: Melinda S. Setterman. Transcript may be viewed at the
court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the
deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained
through PACER or the Court Reporter/Transcriber. If redaction is necessary, parties
have seven calendar days from the file date of the Transcript to E−File the Notice of
Intent to Request Redaction. The following deadlines would also apply if requesting
redaction: Redaction Request Statement due to Court Reporter/Transcriber 6/9/2021.
Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/21/2021. Release of Transcript Restriction set
for 8/17/2021. (akr) (Entered: 05/19/2021)
05/28/2021 266 NOTICE of Appearance by Tyler Louis Fischer Krentz on behalf of Scott Holslag
(Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Krentz, Tyler)Attorney Tyler Louis Fischer
Krentz added to party Scott Holslag(pty:dft) (ag). (Entered: 05/28/2021)
06/17/2021 267 STATUS REPORT REGARDING APPEAL (JOINT) by Scott Holslag. (Attachments:
# 1 Proof of Service)(Krentz, Tyler) (jpp). (Entered: 06/17/2021)
09/15/2021 268 STATUS REPORT JOINT STATUS REPORT REGARDING APPEAL by Scott
Holslag. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Krentz, Tyler) (ag). (Entered:
09/15/2021)
EXHIBIT 4
EXHIBIT 5
Case 3:16-cv-02989-WQH-MDD Document 96 Filed 03/09/18 PageID.903 Page 1 of 16

3 105 W. “F” ST., 4TH FL.
4 TEL: (619) 233-1525
6 5927 BALFOUR CT., STE 202
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
7 TEL: (760) 431-5290
8
Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ESTATE OF TIMOTHY GENE SMITH et al.
9
11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
ESTATE OF TIMOTHY GENE SMITH, Case No.: 16-CV-2989-WQH-MDD
13 by his successor in interest Wyatt Allen
Gunner Smith, SANDY LYNN SECOND AMENDED
14 SIMMONS, and WYATT ALLEN COMPLAINT
GUNNER SMITH,
Plaintiffs, FOURTH AMENDMENT
16 v. (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
2. VIOLATION OF THE
17 CITY OF SAN DIEGO; SCOTT FOURTEENTH
HOLSLAG; NATALIE ANN MACEY AMENDMENT
18 d/b/a MACEY BAIL BONDS, as an (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
individual; LEGAL SERVICE 3. VIOLATION OF CIVIL
19 BUREAU, INC. d/b/a GLOBAL RIGHTS
FUGITIVE RECOVERY, a California (CAL. CIV.CODE § 52.1)
20 domestic corporation; DAN
ESCAMILLA, as an individual and on 4. BATTERY
21 behalf of LEGAL SERVICE BUREAU, 5. WRONGFUL DEATH
INC.; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, (CAL.CIV.PROC. § 377.60)
22 6. CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE
Defendants. CIVIL RIGHTS (42 U.S.C.
23 §1983)
24
25
26
27
28
1
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
1
3 interest Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith, SANDY LYNN SIMMONS, and WYATT
4 ALLEN GUNNER SMITH allege as follows:
5 I.
7 1. Jurisdiction of this court arises under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1337,
8 1343(a), and 1367(a); and 42 U.S.C. §§1983, 1985(3), 1986, and 1988.
9 2. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state law
10 claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
11 3. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue is proper in the Southern
12 District of California because the acts or omissions which form the basis of the
13 Plaintiff’s claims occurred in San Diego County, within the Southern District of
14 California.
15 4. The Estate is the estate of decedent Timothy Smith. Under Section
16 377.20 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, the Estate has standing to bring
17 claims for Timothy Smith for the torts resulting in his death. For jurisdictional
18 purposes, and since Timothy Smith’s death occurred in California, the Estate
19 resides in California.
20 5. Decedent Timothy Smith died intestate.
21 6. Timothy Smith is survived by Plaintiff Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith, his
22 son. Wyatt Smith is the successor in interest of the Estate of Timothy Smith.
23 7. Jamie Richelle Sanders has waived any interest she may have in
24 decedent’s estate, causes of action and this case. No other person has any claim to
25 the Estate superior to that of Wyatt Smith.
26 8. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §377.32(a), Wyatt
27 Smith has executed and filed the requisite affidavit to establish that he is
28
2
1 decedent’s successor in interest and may properly prosecute this action on behalf
2 of the Estate of Timothy Smith.
3 II.
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
4
9. Pursuant to section 910 of the California Government Code, Plaintiffs
5
timely filed administrative claims with the City of San Diego (“City”) on April 29,
6
2016. Their claims were denied by written letter on July 7, 2016.
7
10. Plaintiffs have exhausted all administrative remedies before filing this
8
instant action.
9 III.
10 PARTIES
13 12. Plaintiff WYATT ALLEN GUNNER SMITH is the son of plaintiff’s
14 decedent TIMOTHY GENE SMITH.
15 13. Plaintiff SANDY LYNN SIMMONS is the mother of plaintiff’s
17 14. Plaintiffs bring this action as individuals on their own behalf under
18 both federal and California law. In addition, Plaintiff Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith
19 brings this action on behalf of the Estate of Timothy Gene Smith as successor in
20 interest of the Estate of Timothy Gene Smith.
21 15. The City of San Diego is a municipality within the State of California
22 and is the employer of Defendants SCOTT HOLSLAG, and other unidentified
23 police officers DOES 1 through 25. The individual defendants performed all of the
24 herein alleged acts for, and in the name of, defendant City of San Diego.
25 16. At all times relevant hereto, defendant HOLSLAG, and DOES 1 to 25
26 were, and still are, residents of the County of San Diego, State of California, and
27 were duly appointed and acting police officers for the City of San Diego. They are
28 sued individually and in their capacities as employees of the City of San Diego.
3
1 17. Upon information and belief, defendant NATALIE ANN MACEY,

2 d/b/a MACEY BAIL BONDS (hereinafter “MACEY”), is a resident of the State of
3 Missouri, a citizen of the United States, and does business throughout the United
4 States. Upon information and belief, MACEY BAIL BONDS was and has been for
5 all relevant times herein registered in the State of Missouri, Charter No.
6 X01275749, with its headquarters and principal place of business located at 114
7 W. North Main, Richmond, MO 64085.
8 18. Upon information and belief, and for all relevant times herein,
9 LEGAL SERVICE BUREAU, INC. (hereinafter “LEGAL SERVICE BUREAU”),
10 d/b/a GLOBAL FUGITIVE RECOVERY, was and is a California domestic
11 corporation registered with the California Secretary of State as Corporation No.
12 C2112580, with its headquarters and principal place of business located at 888 W.
13 Santa Ana Blvd., Suite 100, Santa Ana, CA 92701. Plaintiff alleges on information
14 and belief that defendant LEGAL SERVICES BUREAU, INC., d/b/a GLOBAL
15 FUGITIVE RECOVERY, does business as a bail bondsman and fugitive recovery
16 agent in the State of California.
17 19. Plaintiff alleges that defendant DAN ESCAMILLA (“ESCAMILLA”)
18 is an officer and director of defendant LEGAL SERVICES BUREAU, INC., d/b/a
19 GLOBAL FUGITIVE RECOVERY, and is a resident of the State of California,
20 County of Orange, and a citizen of the United States. Plaintiffs bring suit against
21 defendant ESCAMILLA as an individual and as a director of LEGAL SERVICE
22 BUREAU, INC., and DOES 26 to 35.
23 20. Defendants DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are sued under fictitious
24 names. Their true names and capacities are unknown to plaintiff. Plaintiffs will
25 amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when they are
26 ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allege that each
27 of the fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the
28
4
1 occurrences alleged in this complaint, and that Plaintiffs’ claims alleged in this
2 complaint were proximately caused by such defendants.
4 named defendant, including DOES 1 through 50, was the agent, servant, employee,
5 or partner of each other defendant, and that each defendant was acting within the
6 course and scope of such agency, employment, partnership, or other business
7 relationship and with the consent or the ratification of each other in doing the
8 things alleged herein.
10 times herein mentioned, Does 1 through 50, and each of them, were residents
11 and/or doing business within the County of San Diego, State of California, within
12 this judicial district, and that defendants, and each of them, are responsible to
13 plaintiffs pursuant to the causes of action set forth herein.
14 IV.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
15
23. Plaintiffs SANDY LYNN SIMMONS and WYATT ALLEN
16
GUNNER SMITH are currently residents of Missouri. Ms. Simmons is the mother
17
of decedent Timothy Smith; and Mr. Smith is the son of decedent Timothy Smith.
18
24. Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the wrongful death and
19
deprivations of the civil rights of Timothy Smith that occurred on November 4,
20
2015.
21
25. On November 4, 2015, decedent Timothy Smith was with Janie
22
Richelle Sanders in the Pacific Beach area of San Diego.
23
26. At the time, Janie Sanders was on bail for minor, non-violent drug
24
possession charges pending in the state of Missouri. Defendant Natalie Ann
25
Macey, d/b/a Macey Bail Bonds, had posted bail on her behalf in the amount of
26
$7500.00. Mrs. Sanders and Mr. Smith left Missouri to visit decedent’s sister in
27
San Diego.
28
5
1 27. Defendant MACEY engaged defendants ESCAMILLA, LEGAL

2 SERVICE BUREAU, INC., d/b/a GLOBAL FUGITIVE RECOVERY, both
3 registered and doing business in the State of California.
4 28. Defendant MACEY had no relationship, contractual or otherwise,
5 with Timothy Smith and was only interested in apprehending Janie Sanders.
6 29. In an intentional and malicious effort to apprehend Mrs. Sanders,
7 defendants MACEY, ESCAMILLA, and LEGAL SERVICES BUREAU
8 fabricated false information about past violent activity of both Janie Sanders as
9 well as Timothy Smith, including acts of violence, assault, weapons possession,
10 and child molestation.
11 30. These defendants printed and distributed “WANTED” posters
12 throughout San Diego which contained information. In particular, the “WANTED”
13 posters stated the following:
14
“CAUTION: CI HAS ADVISED THAT SUBJECT SMITH
15 RECENTLY LEFT MISSOURI BY TRAIN ARMED
16 WITH AN AK-47 and/or 38 (sic) Revolver and is a convicted
felon with a long history of violent crimes … If information is
17 developed concerning either fugitive, Please contact the
18 assigned Bail Agent / Fugitive Recovery Agent: Dan Escamilla
19 (714) 307-1064”
20 31. These “WANTED” posters included pictures of Janie Sanders and

21 decedent Timothy Smith, complete with their dates of birth, heights, and
22 approximate weights:
23
24 ////
25 ////
26
27 ////
28 ////
6
1 ////
2
////
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
1 32. Plaintiffs allege that the information provided on these “WANTED”

2 posters was false. Neither Janie Sanders nor Timothy Smith had a history of
3 violent crimes, and such false information was provided to law enforcement
4 agencies solely for the purpose of engaging their assistance to apprehend persons
5 who otherwise would have been ignored due to the minor nature of their alleged
6 crimes and the insignificant amount of outstanding bail to be recovered.
7 33. On the date of the incident, November 4, 2015, decedent Timothy
8 Smith was apparently seen by two officers of the San Diego Police Department
9 exiting a store in the Pacific Beach area of San Diego. Mr. Smith was not wearing
10 a shirt. He was wearing only tan shorts and black socks. There was no warrant for
11 Mr. Smith’s arrest. Mr. Smith had committed no crimes. There was no legal basis
12 to arrest Mr. Smith. Nevertheless, officers gave chase and Timothy Smith fled.
13 34. A perimeter was set up, with police helicopters overhead, and canine
14 units were deployed. Timothy Smith was eventually cornered in an alley. After
15 jumping onto a ledge, he was unable to move in any direction. He did not have any
16 weapon. He was not a threat in any way. Yet, Officer Scott Holslag fatally shot
17 Timothy Smith numerous times with a .45 caliber weapon. Mr. Smith was declared
18 dead shortly thereafter.
19 35. Timothy Smith had not committed any crime in California and was
20 not wanted for any crime in California. He had not made any verbal threats or
21 threatening movements or gestures. He was not a danger to the public. Holslag and
22 the other officers never warned him that officers would shoot before they fired
23 upon him. Plaintiffs further allege that SDPD officers did not use any other
24 alternative, non-deadly measures against Mr. Smith before using deadly force.
25 36. Defendant Holslag and other Doe officers shot and killed an unarmed
26 man who posed no immediate threat to them or to any third person. They acted
27 without justification or necessity. Defendants’ actions were unreasonable under the
28 circumstances. Their actions constituted an excessive and unreasonable use of
8
1 force and an unlawful seizure in violation of Mr. Smith’s clearly established rights
2 as guaranteed by the United States Constitution, particularly the Fourth and
3 Fourteenth Amendments, to be free from the use of excessive force.
4 V.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
5 FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION [42 U.S.C. § 1983]
6 (Against Defendants Scott Holslag and DOES 1 to 25 by
All Plaintiffs)
7
8
incorporate the same herein by this reference. The acts alleged above, including the
9
act by defendant Holslag of shooting and killing an innocent, unarmed man
10
without justification or necessity, constituted an excessive and unreasonable use of
11
force and thus an unlawful seizure, in violation of Timothy Smith’s rights as
12
guaranteed by the United States Constitution, particularly the Fourth Amendment.
13
Plaintiff Estate of Timothy Gene Smith is therefore entitled to damages pursuant to
14
42 U.S.C. §1983, et seq. in an amount to be proven at trial.
15
38. Timothy Smith was detained and seized by Defendant Holslag
16
without a warrant or probable cause. These acts, which led to the shooting and
17
death of Mr. Smith, constituted an unreasonable seizure in violation of Mr. Smith’s
18
rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Plaintiff Estate of Timothy
19
Gene Smith is entitled to damages pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. §1983, et seq. in an
20
amount to be proven at trial.
21
39. The acts of defendant Holslag as described above amounted to
22
deliberate indifference to decedent’s Constitutional Rights.
23
40. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful acts, excessive force,
24
unlawful seizure and recklessness described above, plaintiffs' decedent Timothy
25
Gene Smith suffered severe injuries and loss of his life. His estate is entitled to
26
general and compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
27
28
9
1 41. As a further result of Defendants’ actions, decedent Timothy Gene

2 Smith’s estate incurred reasonable funeral expenses and loss of such income as
3 Timothy Smith would have earned in his lifetime. The Estate of Timothy Gene
4 Smith and his successors in interest have lost such estate as decedent might
5 reasonably have accumulated in his natural life expectancy. Thus, plaintiffs are
6 entitled to damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
7 42. The acts of defendant Holslag were done willfully, maliciously and/or
8 with a reckless indifference to decedent’s constitutional rights to and disregard for
9 decedent's safety and continued life, therefore entitling Plaintiffs to punitive
10 damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
11 VI.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
12 FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION [42 USC § 1983]
13 (Against Defendants Scott Holslag and DOES 1 to 25
by Sandy Simmons and Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith)
14
18 which caused the death of Plaintiffs' decedent Timothy Smith, Plaintiff Sandy
19 Simmons suffered the loss of her son; and Wyatt Smith suffered the loss of his
20 father. Thus, the acts of defendant Holslag deprived Plaintiffs Sandy Simmons and
21 Wyatt Smith of their constitutionally protected First and Fourteenth Amendment
22 rights to the love, support, affection and companionship of Timothy Smith, in
23 violation of Plaintiffs’ rights as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the
24 U.S. Constitution, including their First and Fifth Amendment rights to intimate
25 familial association.
26 44. The use of deadly force on an unarmed man who posed no threat
27 shocks the conscience.
28
10
1 45. Tim Smith was unarmed and posed no threat. Defendants had time
2 and opportunity to deliberate before employing deadly force. Defendants’ use of
3 deadly force was unreasonable.
4 46. The acts of defendants and each of them as described caused Timothy
6 Plaintiffs Sandy Simmons and Wyatt Smith. These acts proximately caused the
7 death of plaintiffs' decedent, Timothy Smith, entitling Plaintiffs to general and
8 compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
13 trial.
14 VII.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
15 VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS [CAL.CIV.CODE §52.1]
16 (Against Defendants City of San Diego, Scott Holslag and Does 1-25
by Estate of Timothy Smith)
17
18
incorporate the same by this reference.
19
52. Defendants interfered by threats, intimidation, or coercion, with the
20
exercise or enjoyment by Timothy Smith of rights secured by the Constitution or
21
laws of the United States.
22
53. The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and
23
Article I, section 13 of the California Constitution, guarantee (a) an individual's
24
right to be free from excessive force and (b) a parent's right to the companionship
25
of her child, and a son’s right to the companionship of his father. California Civil
26
Code section 43 confers a right to be secure in one’s bodily integrity from assault
27
and excessive force. By engaging in the acts alleged above, Defendants denied
28
11
1 those rights to Plaintiff, thus giving rise to claims for damages pursuant to
2 California Civil Code section 52.1.
3 54. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, as alleged
4 herein, Plaintiff was injured as set forth above and are entitled to damages,
5 including compensatory and punitive damages, in an amount to be proven at trial
6 and in excess of the jurisdictional amount required by this Court.
8 claim Timothy Gene Smith’s pre-death damages.
9 56. In conducting himself as alleged herein, Holslag and DOES 1 to 25
10 were acting within the course and scope of their employment with Defendant City
11 of San Diego. Thus, the City is responsible for Holslag’s and Doe Defendants’
12 actions.
18 VIII.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
19 BATTERY
20 (Against Defendants City of San Diego, Scott Holslag and DOES 1 to 25 by All
Plaintiffs)
21
22
23
59. By the acts alleged herein, particularly defendant Holslag's act of
24
shooting and killing Timothy Gene Smith, as described in the Factual Allegations
25
and the First and Second Causes of Action, defendants committed a battery upon
26
Timothy Smith which caused him to suffer injuries and wrongful death, thereby
27
28
12
1 entitling Plaintiffs to damages pursuant to California law. As a result, Plaintiffs are

2 entitled to general and compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
3 60. In committing the acts alleged above, defendant Holslag and Does
4 acted maliciously and/or was guilty of a wanton and reckless disregard for the
5 rights and feelings of Plaintiffs' decedent and by reason thereof Plaintiffs are
6 entitled to exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
7 IX.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
8 WRONGFUL DEATH [CAL.CIV.PROC. § 377.60]
9 (Against Defendants City of San Diego, Holslag and DOES 1-25 by all
Plaintiffs)
10
11
12
62. Defendants committed wrongful acts, including battery and the other
13
torts alleged herein, which proximately caused the death of Timothy Smith. In
14
addition, defendants acted negligently by their acceptance and use of
15
unsubstantiated and false information and in their use of excessive force.
16
63. These acts resulted in the death of Timothy Smith.
17
64. The City of San Diego is responsible for the act of individual and Doe
18
Defendants under the theory of respondeat superior.
19
65. The wrongful acts alleged above has destroyed the relationship
20
between Plaintiffs and Timothy Smith and has legally, proximately, foreseeably
21
and actually caused severe emotional damages, including the loss of society,
22
companionship, emotional distress, and further economic and non-economic
23
damages according to proof at the time of trial.
24
25 ////
26
////
27
28 ////
13
1 X.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2 CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE CIVIL RIGHTS (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
3 (Against Defendants NATALIE ANN MACEY d/b/a MACEY BAIL BONDS,
as an individual; LEGAL SERVICE BUREAU, INC. d/b/a GLOBAL
4
FUGITIVE RECOVERY, a California domestic corporation; DAN
5 ESCAMILLA, as an individual and on behalf of LEGAL SERVICE
6 BUREAU, INC.; and DOES 26-50 by All Plaintiffs)

9 67. Plaintiffs allege that defendants Macey, Escamilla, Legal Services
10 Bureau, Inc., and DOES 26-50 conspired to deprive Timothy Smith of his
11 constitutionally protected rights as guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth
12 Amendments to the United States Constitution by fabricating and falsifying
13 information about Timothy Smith, and publishing and disseminating said
14 information to law enforcement agencies with the knowledge and expectation that
15 law enforcement would act upon that information to deprive Timothy Smith of his
16 rights and with the intention and/or reckless disregard of the likelihood that this
17 false information would result in violations of decedent Smith’s Fourth
18 Amendment rights, including the right to be free of wrongful detention and use of
19 excessive force.
25 police who apprehended Mr. Smith without probable cause, and killed him by the
26 use of excessive force.
27 69. Defendants in this cause of action agreed with each other to
28 coordinate with, to act jointly with, and to obtain the participation of S.D.P.D. in a
14
1 joint operation with themselves to locate and seize decedent and Janie Sanders.
2 Pursuant to this plan, defendants provided false information regarding possession
3 of dangerous firearms, and non-existent convictions for crimes of violence to
4 S.D.P.D. Defendant Escamilla falsely reported that decedent and Janie Sanders
5 were “armed and dangerous.”
6 70. Defendants in this cause of action acted under color of state law.
7 Defendants engaged in a search for and surveillance of decedent and Janie Sanders
8 on the day of his death as part of a joint operation in which they coordinated with
9 the San Diego Police Department. Defendant Escamilla, a licensed bondsman and
10 fugitive recovery agent, engaged in frequent communication, coordination, and
11 planning with the S.D.P.D. These activities were directed at locating and detaining
12 decedent and Janie Richelle Sanders. On the date of Timothy Smith’s death,
13 Escamilla and/or his agents specifically searched in the Pacific Beach area of San
14 Diego, and shared the results of their efforts with S.D.P.D.
19 claim Timothy Smith’s pre-death damages. Plaintiffs have standing to claim
26 ////
27 ////
28 ////
15
1 XI.
PRAYER FOR
2 DAMAGES AND OTHER REMEDIES
3 WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays for judgment against DEFENDANTS
4 and relief as follows:
5 1. For compensatory damages, including special and general damages;
6 2. For exemplary and punitive damages against defendants Holslag, Macey,
7 Escamilla, Legal Services Bureau, Inc., and DOES 1-50 in an amount to be proven
8 at trial;
10 Cal.Civ.Code § 52.1(h);
13 6. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.
14
15
Dated: March 9, 2018 IREDALE & YOO, APC
16
17
By:/s/ Julia Yoo
18
19 TIMOTHY GENE SMITH, SANDY LYNN
SIMMONS, AND WYATT ALLEN
20 GUNNER SMITH
21
22
23 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
24 Plaintiffs demand a jury trial in this action.
25
26
By:/s/ Julia Yoo
27
28
16
EXHIBIT 6

3 105 W. “F” ST., 4TH FL.
4 TEL: (619) 233-1525
6 5927 BALFOUR CT., STE 202
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
7 TEL: (760) 431-5290
8
Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ESTATE OF TIMOTHY GENE SMITH et al.
9
12
ESTATE OF TIMOTHY GENE SMITH, Case No.: 16-CV-2989-WQH-MSB
13 by his successor in interest Wyatt Allen
Gunner Smith, SANDY LYNN THIRD AMENDED
14 SIMMONS, and WYATT ALLEN COMPLAINT
GUNNER SMITH,
Plaintiffs, FOURTH AMENDMENT
16 v. (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
2. VIOLATION OF THE
17 CITY OF SAN DIEGO; SCOTT FOURTEENTH
HOLSLAG; DAVID BRECHT; AMENDMENT
18 NATALIE ANN MACEY d/b/a (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
MACEY BAIL BONDS, as an 3. VIOLATION OF CIVIL
19 individual; LEGAL SERVICE RIGHTS
BUREAU, INC. d/b/a GLOBAL (CAL. CIV.CODE § 52.1)
20 FUGITIVE RECOVERY, a California
domestic corporation; DAN 4. BATTERY
21 ESCAMILLA, as an individual and on 5. WRONGFUL DEATH
behalf of LEGAL SERVICE BUREAU, (CAL.CIV.PROC. § 377.60)
22 INC.; and ISMAEL SOTO, as an 6. CONSPIRACY TO
individual, VIOLATE CIVIL RIGHTS
23 (42 U.S.C. §1983)
Defendants. 7. VIOLATION OF CIVIL
24 RIGHTS (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
25
26
27
28
1
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

2 interest Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith, SANDY LYNN SIMMONS, and WYATT
3 ALLEN GUNNER SMITH allege as follows:
4
5 I.
1. This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1337,
7
1343(a), and 1367(a); and 42 U.S.C. §§1983, 1985(3), 1986, and 1988.
8
2. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state law
9
claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
10
3. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue is proper in the Southern
11
District of California because the acts or omissions which form the basis of the
12
Plaintiff’s claims occurred in San Diego County, within the Southern District of
13
California.
14
4. The Estate is the estate of decedent Timothy Smith. Under Section
15
377.20 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, the Estate has standing to bring
16
claims for Timothy Smith for the torts resulting in his death. For jurisdictional
17
purposes, and since Timothy Smith’s death occurred in California, the Estate
18
resides in California.
19
5. Decedent Timothy Smith died intestate.
20
6. Timothy Smith is survived by Plaintiff Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith, his
21
son. Wyatt Smith is the successor in interest of the Estate of Timothy Smith.
22
7. Jamie Richelle Sanders has waived any interest she may have in
23
decedent’s estate, causes of action and this case. No other person has any claim to
24
the Estate superior to that of Wyatt Smith.
25
8. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §377.32(a), Wyatt
26
Smith has executed and filed the requisite affidavit to establish that he is
27
28
2
1 decedent’s successor in interest and may properly prosecute this action on behalf
2 of the Estate of Timothy Smith.
3
II.
4 EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
5 9. Pursuant to section 910 of the California Government Code, Plaintiffs
6 timely filed administrative claims with the City of San Diego (“City”) on April 29,
7 2016. Their claims were denied by written letter on July 7, 2016.
8 10. Plaintiffs have exhausted all administrative remedies before filing this
9 instant action.
10
III.
11
PARTIES
14 12. Plaintiff WYATT ALLEN GUNNER SMITH is the son of plaintiff’s
16 13. Plaintiff SANDY LYNN SIMMONS is the mother of plaintiff’s
18 14. Plaintiffs bring this action as individuals on their own behalf under
19 both federal and California law. In addition, Plaintiff Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith
20 brings this action on behalf of the Estate of Timothy Gene Smith as successor in
21 interest of the Estate of Timothy Gene Smith.
22 15. The City of San Diego is a municipality within the State of California
23 and is the employer of Defendants SCOTT HOLSLAG and DAVID
24 BRECHT.Defendants HOLSLAG and BRECHT performed all of the herein
25 alleged acts for, and in the name of, Defendant City of San Diego.
26 16. At all times relevant hereto, defendants SCOTT HOLSLAG, and
27 DAVID BRECHT were, and still are, residents of the County of San Diego, State
28 of California, and were duly appointed and acting police officers for the City of
3
1 San Diego. They are sued individually and in their capacities as employees of the
2 City of San Diego.
3 17. Defendant NATALIE ANN MACEY, d/b/a MACEY BAIL BONDS
4 (hereinafter “MACEY”), is a resident of the State of Missouri, a citizen of the
5 United States, and does business throughout the United States. MACEY BAIL
6 BONDS was and has been for all relevant times herein registered in the State of
7 Missouri, Charter No. X01275749, with its headquarters and principal place of
8 business located at 114 W. North Main, Richmond, MO 64085.
9 18. LEGAL SERVICE BUREAU, INC. (hereinafter “LEGAL SERVICE
10 BUREAU”), d/b/a GLOBAL FUGITIVE RECOVERY, was and is a California
11 domestic corporation registered with the California Secretary of State as
12 Corporation No. C2112580, with its headquarters and principal place of business
13 located at 888 W. Santa Ana Blvd., Suite 100, Santa Ana, CA 92701. LEGAL
14 SERVICES BUREAU, INC., d/b/a GLOBAL FUGITIVE RECOVERY, does
15 business as a bail bondsman and fugitive recovery agent in the State of California.
16 19. Defendant DAN ESCAMILLA (“ESCAMILLA”) is an officer and
17 director of defendant LEGAL SERVICES BUREAU, INC., d/b/a GLOBAL
18 FUGITIVE RECOVERY, and is a resident of the State of California, County of
19 Orange, and a citizen of the United States. Upon information and belief, ISMAEL
20 SOTO is DAN ESCAMILLA’s partner, employee, and/or agent at LEGAL
21 SERVICES BUREAU, INC., d/b/a GLOBAL FUGITIVE RECOVERY, and is a
22 resident of the State of California, County of Riverside, and a citizen of the United
23 States. Plaintiffs bring suit against defendant SOTO as an individual.
24 20. Defendants DOES 2 through 25 and 27 through 50, inclusive, are sued
25 under fictitious names. Their true names and capacities are unknown to plaintiff.
26 Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when
27 they are ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allege
28 that each of the fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for
4
1 the occurrences alleged in this complaint, and that Plaintiffs’ claims alleged in this
2 complaint were proximately caused by such defendants.
4 named defendant, including DOES 2 through 25 and 27 through 50, was the agent,
5 servant, employee, or partner of each other defendant, and that each defendant was
6 acting within the course and scope of such agency, employment, partnership, or
7 other business relationship and with the consent or the ratification of each other in
8 doing the things alleged herein.
10 times herein mentioned, DOES 2 through 25 and 27 through 50, and each of them,
11 were residents and/or doing business within the County of San Diego, State of
12 California, within this judicial district, and that defendants, and each of them, are
13 responsible to plaintiffs pursuant to the causes of action set forth herein.
14 23. Defendant BRECHT had previously been named as “Doe #1” in the
15 second amended complaint. Plaintiffs have since discovered his name, his role in
16 the events of the case, and the facts giving rise to his liability.
17 24. Defendant ISMAEL SOTO had previously been named as “Doe #26”
18 in the previous complaints herein. Plaintiffs have since discovered his name, his
19 role in the events of the case, and the facts giving rise to his liability.
20 IV.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
21
25. Plaintiffs SANDY LYNN SIMMONS and WYATT ALLEN
22
GUNNER SMITH are currently residents of Missouri. Ms. Simmons is the mother
23
of decedent Timothy Smith; and Mr. Smith is the son of decedent Timothy Smith.
24
26. Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the wrongful death and
25
deprivations of the civil rights of Timothy Smith that occurred on November 4,
26
2015.
27
27. In November 2015, Janie Sanders was on bail for a minor, non-violent
28
drug possession charge pending in the state of Missouri. Defendant Natalie Ann
5
1 Macey, d/b/a Macey Bail Bonds, had posted bail on her behalf in the amount of
2 $7500.00. Ms. Sanders and Mr. Smith left Missouri to visit decedent’s sister in
3 San Diego. Ms. Sanders failed to appear in court for an appearance in her drug
4 possession case, and a warrant was issued for her arrest in Missouri.
5 28. Defendant MACEY engaged defendants ESCAMILLA, SOTO, and
6 LEGAL SERVICE BUREAU, INC., d/b/a GLOBAL FUGITIVE RECOVERY,
7 both registered and doing business in the State of California.
8 29. Defendant MACEY was specifically interested in apprehending Janie
9 Sanders.
10 30. Defendants ESCAMILLA and SOTO style themselves as “bail bond
11 agents,” “bail recovery agents” and “bounty hunters.” Defendant MACEY sought
12 ESCAMILLA’s and SOTO’s assistance in order to arrest Janie Sanders, and avoid
13 the forfeiture of the $7500 bail.
14 31. To increase the chances of recovering Janie Sanders, Defendants
15 MACEY and ESCAMILLA, with the assistance of SOTO, began to invent facts
16 pertaining to Janie Sanders’s and Timothy Smith’s criminal history.
17 32. Defendants MACEY and ESCAMILLA, and with the assistance of
18 ESCAMILLA’s agent SOTO, intentionally and maliciously fabricated false claims
19 that both Janie Sanders and Timothy Smith were presently armed and dangerous.
20 33. In an intentional and malicious effort to apprehend Ms. Sanders,
21 defendants MACEY, ESCAMILLA, and LEGAL SERVICES BUREAU, through
22 its agent SOTO, fabricated false information about past violent activity of both
23 Janie Sanders as well as Timothy Smith, including non-existent acts of violence,
24 child molestation, armed robbery and flight from Missouri State Troopers.
25 34. On November 3, 2015 at 3:18 p.m., ISMAEL SOTO spoke with a
26 representative of the San Diego Police Department. SOTO stated that he was
27 acting with his “partner” Don ESCAMILLA. SOTO stated that Janie Sanders and
28 Timothy G. Smith were fugitives from Missouri. SOTO stated that he and his
6
1 partner were going to call for “back up” because of the seriousness of the fugitives
2 with whom they were dealing, adding “this guy [Mr. Smith] is going away for
3 life.” SOTO then requested to speak to Officer Colin Governski. When told that
4 Governski was not then on duty, SOTO stated, “I have his personal cell, I will give
5 him a jingle.” SOTO ended the call by saying “This should be a fun one.”
6 35. At 3:45 p.m., on the same date, Defendant ESCAMILLA spoke to San
7 Diego Police Department. ESCAMILLA said that now “we are Code 5” (jargon
8 for “on surveillance”) in the area of Fanuel Park in the Pacific Beach section of
9 San Diego. ESCAMILLA stated that he was engaged in surveillance with at least
10 two other persons. ESCAMILLA explained that he would later call for SDPD
11 assistance and to have SDPD take the persons into custody. Defendant
12 ESCAMILLA told the San Diego Police operator that Janie Sanders and Timothy
13 Smith had been spotted. The operator asked ESCAMILLA if he was alone or with
14 someone. ESCAMILLA informed the operator the he was with two observers, one
15 of whom was ISMAEL SOTO.
16 36. Later that same date, SOTO and ESCAMILLA reported that they
17 believed Janie Sanders and Timothy Smith were having sexual relations in a public
18 bathroom in Fanuel Park. At their behest, SDPD reported in force using a police
19 helicopter, police officers with canines, and at least five officers with weapons at
20 the ready. ESCAMILLA and SOTO were present while the police officers
21 searched the park and restrooms at their direction. Three persons were detained at
22 gunpoint. None of these were Janie Sanders or Timothy Smith.
23 37. While the San Diego Police officers were in Fanuel Park searching for
24 Janie Sanders and Timothy Smith in the restrooms, one officer asked Dispatch to
25 run a warrant check. Dispatch reported, “at least in NCIC, there’s no warrants.
26 There’s no warrant.” Dispatch later reported that there was a warrant for the
27 female.
28
7
1 38. The Operator Search input/ouput Dispatch Report specifically stated

2 “****WARNING – THE FOLLOWING IS AN NCIC PROTECTION ORDER
3 RECORD. DO NOT SEARCH, DETAIN, OR ARREST BASED SOLELY ON
4 THIS RECORD. CONTACT ENTERING AGENCY TO CONFIRM STATUS
5 AND TERMS OF PROTECTION ORDER*****”
6 39. After the police conducted an armed detention of the three persons,
7 ESCAMILLA and SOTO spoke with SDPD representatives, continuing to falsely
8 assert that Timothy Smith was armed and extremely dangerous, had a history of
9 multiple violent offenses, and had engaged in child molestation. ESCAMILLA
10 had printed “WANTED” posters which he provided to the police. The
11 “WANTED” posters stated the following:
12
////
13
14 ////
15
////
16
17 ////
18
////
19
20 ////
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
1 40. The information provided on these “WANTED” posters was false.

2 Timothy Smith did not have a history of violent crimes. He was unarmed. He had
3 travelled by bus from Missouri to California with Janie Sanders and was staying in
4 Pacific Beach in his sister’s apartment. ESCAMILLA and SOTO provided this
5 false information with MACEY’s agreement, to law enforcement agencies solely
6 for the purpose of engaging their assistance to apprehend persons who otherwise
7 would have been ignored due to the minor nature of their alleged crimes and the
8 insignificant amount of outstanding bail to be recovered, and the absence of any
9 warrant for Timothy Smith from Missouri in the NCIC system.
10 41. Thus, as of November 3, 2015, SDPD officials knew the following: 1)
11 ESCAMILLA and SOTO had asserted that Timothy Smith was a fugitive from
12 Missouri, but an NCIC computer check run on that date showed that no
13 outstanding warrant for Mr. Smith had been entered into that system. 2)
14 ESCAMILLA had asserted that Mr. Smith and Ms. Sanders were in Fanuel Park
15 having sexual relations in a public restroom; when SDPD responded in full force,
16 with helicopter, police dogs, and multiple officers with drawn weapons, the three
17 people detained had nothing to do with any Missouri fugitive warrant.
18 Notwithstanding these facts, the SDPD accepted as true the false representations of
19 ESCAMILLA, and provided to ESCAMILLA and SOTO an incident number to
20 allow them quick access for future assistance by the police in the quest to arrest
21 Ms. Sanders and Mr. Smith.
22 42. On November 4, 2015, at 10:05 a.m., ISMAEL SOTO contacted
23 SDPD by telephone. He stated that “we have proprietary methods” that he and
24 Escamilla had used to locate the Missouri fugitives. He stated that he could give
25 an 8-block radius of “where they’re at.”
26 43. SOTO stated that the night before he and ESCAMILLA had found a
27 man and a woman in the 4000 block of Fanuel, and “you guys came in full force.”
28 ESCAMILLA went on: “we got to get these people off the streets, they are in
10
1 Pacific Beach, and they are homeless, and they are walking around with an AK and
2 they are on drugs.” SOTO asserted again “we are just trying to get these people off
3 the streets.” SOTO falsely asserted that “Timothy Gene Smith has a 54-page RAP
4 sheet that’ll blow your mind from child molestation to forgery. I mean this guy is
5 dangerous. And they are both armed and on drugs. Apparently she carries a .38
6 and he carries an AK in his backpack.”
7 44. SOTO stated that it was a “Pretty big deal. Great friends that work
8 that beat and they need to be informed. Lt. Dom Crime Suppression Unit.”
9 45. SOTO requested a “BOLO” (be on the lookout) for Janie and
10 Timothy. As if to signify the value or noteworthiness of recovering Janie and
11 Timothy, SOTO informed the San Diego Police operator that this case to recover
12 Janie and Timothy is one of “Dog the Bounty Hunter’s” cases.
13 46. On November 4, during a San Diego Police Department briefing
14 Defendant BRECHT handed out ESCAMILLA’s wanted poster and ordered to the
15 officers to go out on an “11-86” and look for a male and female who were wanted
16 out of Missouri on felony warrants, and who were armed with an AK-47 and a
17 pistol. Sergeant BRECHT requested officers to “look for the guy” because
18 ESCAMILLA “was pinging [his] phone.”
19 47. DAVID BRECHT was a supervising sergeant on scene at the time of
20 the shooting, and was the patrol supervisor for Officers Benjamin Douglas and
21 Ricardo Escalante.
22 48. BRECHT had a duty to use due care and diligence in giving
23 information to his subordinates that was accurate and reliable.
24 49. BRECHT had a duty to use due diligence to avoid conveying false
25 information which could lead to hasty actions by officers who would believe such
26 information, such as that a suspect was armed, dangerous, and violent.
27 50. As an experienced police official BRECHT understood that by
28 conveying information that Timothy Smith was armed, dangerous, and violent, he
11
1 would be leading the recipients of such information to be more likely to

2 imprudently and aggressively conduct any contact with Timothy Smith, increasing
3 the risk of harm.
4 51. BRECHT was aware that SOTO had provided S.D.P.D. information
5 on Nov 3, 2015 at 3:18 p.m. claiming that Timothy Smith was armed and
6 dangerous.
7 52. BRECHT learned that at ESCAMILLA had notified S.D.P.D. that
8 Timothy Smith and Janie Sanders were in a public restroom in Fanuel Park, that
9 S.D.P.D. had responded in force while SOTO and ESCAMILLA were present, and
10 that Janie Sanders and Timothy Smith were not in fact located there.
11 53. BRECHT had information that an NCIC computer check conducted
12 by S.D.P.D. on November 3, 2015 showed no outstanding warrant entered in that
13 system for Timothy Smith.
14 54. On November 4, 2015 at 11:37 a.m. BRECHT learned that
15 ESCAMILLA and SOTO were still searching for Janie Sanders and Timothy
16 Smith, and that they had claimed to Sergeant Botsford that they had “traced” Janie
17 Sanders’ phone number to the area of 1600 Garnet Avenue that day.
18 55. At 1:07 p.m. on 4 November 2015, BRECHT coordinated with
19 SOTO, speaking by telephone and learning, according to SOTO, that the suspects
20 had not been arrested.
21 56. At the “line-up” BRECHT distributed the wanted poster provided by
22 ESCAMILLA to his squad that would be in the Pacific Beach area.
23 57. BRECHT provided ESCAMILLA’s wanted poster to Officers
24 Escalante and Douglas.
25 58. At ESCAMILLA’s and SOTO’s request, BRECHT told Douglas and
26 Escalante to check the area of Grand Avenue for Ms. Sanders and Mr. Smith.
27
28
12
1 59. At approximately 2:45 p.m., after going to the location provided to

2 S.D.P.D. by SOTO (1600 Garnet Avenue), Officers Douglas and Escalante saw a
3 man in tan shorts walking on the sidewalk near 1700 Garnet Avenue.
4 60. Douglas believed the man looked like Timothy Smith in the wanted
5 poster.
6 61. Escalante began to chase after Timothy Smith, who ran away.
7 62. Mr. Smith fled to a nearby apartment building. He hid in an outside
8 utility closet.
9 63. An Abel Helicopter began issuing commands after Timothy fled the
10 officers. Able officers communicated over the loud speaker to Pacific Beach
11 residents that the San Diego Police Department was in search of a felony warrant
12 suspect, a white male wearing tan shorts and a t-shirt, and to call 911 if anyone had
13 information.
14 64. Timothy Smith was unarmed.
15 65. At this time a perimeter was set up around the 1300 block of Thomas
16 Avenue, with the police helicopter overhead, and canine units on both the north
17 and south sides of the street. Timothy Smith was eventually cornered in a narrow
18 walkway.
19 66. Defendant SCOTT HOLSLAG, a canine Sergeant, released a police
20 dog to capture Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith fled the utility closet, jumped a fence, and
21 the police dog grabbed his shoe as he did so.
22 67. Timothy Smith climbed onto a stucco ledge, some 18 inches wide.
23 This ledge was above the electric meter closet, and was six feet in the air.
24 68. At this time Timothy Smith was shirtless, wearing shorts, shoeless,
25 standing six feet in the air, and surrounded by at least 6 police officers, two
26 snarling police dogs, and surveilled from above by the police heliocopter.
27 69. After jumping onto a ledge, he was unable to move in any direction.
28 He did not have any weapon. He was not a threat.
13
1 70. Defendant HOLSLAG, after leashing his dog, stood on the other side
2 of a six foot fence at an angle approximately twelve (12) to fifteen (15) feet from
3 Timothy Smith. HOLSLAG shot Timothy Smith three times, as Mr. Smith stood
4 with his hands raised in the air, empty, while turning to face the wall. Video of the
5 shooting shows Mr. Smith turning away from HOLSLAG to face the wall, empty
6 hands upraised, as HOLSLAG shoots his .45 caliber handgun. One of the bullets
7 pierced Timothy Smith’s heart. An officer at the scene told HOLSLAG, “wow,
8 looks like you shot an unarmed person.”
9 71. HOLSLAG had previously shot and killed another unarmed man in
10 Pacific Beach. Holslag was never disciplined nor criminally charged. Afterwards,
11 HOLSLAG had stated that he killed the unarmed man because he believed the man
12 was reaching for a nonexistent gun.
13 72. On November 5, 2015, in a statement to Homicide detectives
14 HOLSLAG stated that he killed unarmed Timothy Smith because he believed he
15 was reaching for a nonexistent gun.
16 73. On November 4, 2015, Defendant ESCAMILLA telephoned SDPD at
17 4:43 p.m. He stated that for the last three days he had been “in your city working
18 on this case,” involving Missouri fugitives Timothy Smith and Janie Sanders.
19 ESCAMILLA said that he understood that “you just got Smith in custody. I am
20 wondering if you got the other fugitive in custody as well so we can call off our
21 investigation.”
22 74. Several hours after HOLSLAG shot and killed Timothy Smith,
23 S.D.P.D. officers arrested Janie Sanders as she surrendered to them outside of
24 Timothy’s sister’s apartment. She was searched. The apartment was searched.
25 There were no firearms.
26 75. Defendant HOLSLAG shot and killed an unarmed man who posed no
27 immediate threat to him or to any third person. He acted without justification or
28 necessity. Defendant HOLSLAG’s actions were unreasonable under the
14
1 circumstances. His actions constituted an excessive and unreasonable use of force

2 and an unlawful seizure in violation of Mr. Smith’s clearly established rights as
3 guaranteed by the United States Constitution, particularly the Fourth and
4 Fourteenth Amendments, to be free from the use of excessive force.
5 76. After Defendant HOLSLAG killed Tim Smith, Defendant
6 ESCAMILLA asserted that the information he had previously disseminated to the
7 San Diego Police Department was correct. Defendant ESCAMILLA stated that he
8 had verified that the information was accurate the same day of the shooting “to
9 quelch [sic] any issue of this maybe being a bad shooting.”
10 77. In an interview after Mr. Smith’s death, Defendant ESCAMILLA
11 reiterated that he had been “the source of the information that you guys [the San
12 Diego Police Department] have that this guy was armed and dangerous . . . and I’m
13 standing by that 100%.”
14 78. ESCAMILLA told the OIS Detective that “I’m behind you guys
15 100%. I think this was a good shoot this afternoon regardless of whether he was
16 armed or not.”
17 79. ESCAMILLA recounted the events of the night before when he and
18 Soto were present in the Fanuel Park and had called the S.D.P.D. to that location to
19 seize the persons they believed were Janie Sanders and Timothy Smith. Escalante
20 expressed gratitude for the S.D.P.D. participation in their quest to arrest the alleged
21 fugitives: “Sending heliocopter, dogs, guys with a lot of guns... everybody was
22 there [chuckles], it was an appropriate response I believe.”
23 V.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
24 FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION [42 U.S.C. § 1983]
25 (Against Defendants Scott Holslag and DOES 2-25 by
All Plaintiffs)
26
27
incorporate the same herein by this reference. The act by defendant Holslag of
28
15
1 shooting and killing an unarmed man without justification or necessity, constituted

2 an excessive and unreasonable use of force and was an unlawful seizure, in
3 violation of Timothy Smith’s rights as guaranteed by the United States
4 Constitution, particularly the Fourth Amendment. Plaintiff Estate of Timothy Gene
5 Smith is therefore entitled to damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, et seq. in an
6 amount to be proven at trial.
7 81. The acts of defendant Holslag as described above amounted to
8 deliberate indifference to decedent’s Constitutional Rights.
9 82. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful acts, excessive force,
10 unlawful seizure and recklessness described above, plaintiffs' decedent Timothy
11 Gene Smith suffered severe injuries and loss of his life. His estate is entitled to
12 general and compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
13 83. As a further result of Defendants’ actions, decedent Timothy Gene
14 Smith’s estate incurred reasonable funeral expenses and loss of such income as
15 Timothy Smith would have earned in his lifetime. The Estate of Timothy Gene
16 Smith and his successors in interest have lost such estate as decedent might
17 reasonably have accumulated in his natural life expectancy. Thus, plaintiffs are
18 entitled to damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
19 84. The acts of defendant Holslag were done willfully, maliciously and/or
20 with a reckless indifference to decedent’s constitutional rights to and disregard for
21 decedent's safety and continued life, therefore entitling Plaintiffs to punitive
22 damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
23 VI.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
24 FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION [42 USC § 1983]
25 (Against Defendants Scott Holslag and DOES 2-25
by Sandy Simmons and Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith)
26
16
2 which caused the death of Plaintiffs' decedent Timothy Smith, Plaintiff Sandy
3 Simmons suffered the loss of her son; and Wyatt Smith suffered the loss of his
4 father. Thus, the acts of defendant Holslag deprived Plaintiffs Sandy Simmons and
5 Wyatt Smith of their constitutionally protected First and Fourteenth Amendment
6 rights to the love, support, affection and companionship of Timothy Smith, in
7 violation of Plaintiffs’ rights as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the
8 U.S. Constitution, including their First and Fifth Amendment rights to intimate
9 familial association.
10 86. The use of deadly force on an unarmed man who posed no threat
11 shocks the conscience.
12 87. Tim Smith was unarmed and posed no threat. Defendants had time
13 and opportunity to deliberate before employing deadly force. Defendants’ use of
14 deadly force was unreasonable.
15 88. The acts of defendant HOLSLAG as described caused Timothy
17 Plaintiffs Sandy Simmons and Wyatt Smith. These acts proximately caused the
18 death of plaintiffs' decedent, Timothy Smith, entitling Plaintiffs to general and
19 compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
24 trial.
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
17
1 VII.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
2 VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS [CAL.CIV.CODE §52.1]
3 (Against Defendants City of San Diego, Scott Holslag and Does 2-25
by Estate of Timothy Smith)
4
5
incorporate the same by this reference.
6
91. Defendants interfered by threats, intimidation, or coercion, with the
7
exercise or enjoyment by Timothy Smith of rights secured by the Constitution or
8
laws of the United States.
9
92. The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and
10
Article I, section 13 of the California Constitution, guarantee (a) an individual's
11
right to be free from excessive force and (b) a parent's right to the companionship
12
of her child, and a son’s right to the companionship of his father. California Civil
13
Code section 43 confers a right to be secure in one’s bodily integrity from assault
14
and excessive force. By engaging in the acts alleged above, Defendants denied
15
those rights to Plaintiff, thus giving rise to claims for damages pursuant to
16
California Civil Code section 52.1.
17
93. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, as alleged
18
herein, Plaintiff was injured as set forth above and are entitled to damages,
19
including compensatory and punitive damages, in an amount to be proven at trial
20
and in excess of the jurisdictional amount required by this Court.
21
94. As Timothy Smith’s successor-in-interest, the Estate is entitled to
22
claim Timothy Gene Smith’s pre-death damages.
23
95. In conducting himself as alleged herein, HOLSLAG was acting within
24
the course and scope of his employment with Defendant CITY OF SAN DIEGO.
25
Thus, the CITY is responsible for HOLSLAG’s actions.
26
96. In doing the foregoing wrongful acts, Defendants acted in reckless
27
and callous disregard for Plaintiffs' constitutional rights. The wrongful acts, and
28
18
4
VIII.
5 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
6 BATTERY
(Against Defendants City of San Diego, Scott Holslag and Does 2-25by All
7
Plaintiffs)
10 98. By the acts alleged herein, particularly defendant Holslag's act of
11 shooting and killing Timothy Gene Smith, as described in the Factual Allegations
12 and the First and Second Causes of Action, defendants committed a battery upon
13 Timothy Smith which caused him to suffer injuries and wrongful death, thereby
14 entitling Plaintiffs to damages pursuant to California law. As a result, Plaintiffs are
15 entitled to general and compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
16 99. In committing the acts alleged above, defendant Holslag acted
17 maliciously and/or was guilty of a wanton and reckless disregard for the rights and
18 feelings of Plaintiffs' decedent and by reason thereof Plaintiffs are entitled to
19 exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
20
21 IX.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
22 WRONGFUL DEATH [CAL.CIV.PROC. § 377.60]
23 (Against Defendants City of San Diego, Holslag, Brecht and DOES 2-25 by all
Plaintiffs)
24
25
26
101. Defendants committed wrongful acts, including battery and
27
negligence alleged herein, which proximately caused the death of Timothy Smith.
28
19
1 In addition, defendants acted negligently by their acceptance and use of

2 unsubstantiated and false information and in their use of excessive force.
3 102. These acts resulted in the death of Timothy Smith.
4 103. The CITY OF SAN DIEGO is responsible for the acts of HOLSLAG
5 and BRECHT under the theory of respondeat superior.
6 104. The wrongful acts alleged above has destroyed the relationship
7 between Plaintiffs and Timothy Smith and has legally, proximately, foreseeably
8 and actually caused severe emotional damages, including the loss of society,
9 companionship, emotional distress, and further economic and non-economic
10 damages according to proof at the time of trial. BRECHT’s violation of the duty of
11 taking reasonable care to insure the accuracy of critical information upon which he
12 knew other officers would rely, was a substantial factor in causing the death of
13 Timothy Smith. Such a consequence was a reasonably foreseeable result of
14 BRECHT’s breach of duty.
15
X.
16 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
17 CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE CIVIL RIGHTS (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
(Against Defendants NATALIE ANN MACEY d/b/a MACEY BAIL BONDS,
18
as an individual; LEGAL SERVICE BUREAU, INC. d/b/a GLOBAL
19 FUGITIVE RECOVERY, a California domestic corporation; DAN
20 ESCAMILLA, as an individual and on behalf of LEGAL SERVICE
BUREAU, INC.; ISMAEL SOTO; and DOES 27-50 by All Plaintiffs)
21
24 106. Plaintiffs allege that defendants Macey, Escamilla, Soto, Legal
25 Services Bureau, Inc., and DOES 27-50 conspired to deprive Timothy Smith of his
26 constitutionally protected rights as guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth
27 Amendments to the United States Constitution by fabricating and falsifying
28 information about Timothy Smith, and publishing and disseminating said
20
1 information to law enforcement agencies with the knowledge and expectation that
2 law enforcement would act upon that information to deprive Timothy Smith of his
3 rights and with the intention and/or reckless disregard of the likelihood that this
4 false information would result in violations of decedent Smith’s Fourth
5 Amendment rights, including the right to be free of wrongful seizure and use of
6 excessive force.
12 police who apprehended Mr. Smith without probable cause, and killed him by the
13 use of excessive force.
14 108. Defendants in this cause of action agreed with each other to
15 coordinate with, to act jointly with, and to obtain the participation of S.D.P.D. in a
16 joint operation with themselves to locate and seize decedent and Janie Sanders.
17 Pursuant to this plan, defendants provided false information regarding possession
18 of dangerous firearms, and non-existent convictions for crimes of violence to
19 S.D.P.D. Defendant Escamilla falsely reported that decedent and Janie Sanders
20 were “armed and dangerous.”
21 109. Defendants in this cause of action acted under color of state law.
22 Defendants engaged in a search for and surveillance of decedent and Janie Sanders
23 on the day of his death as part of a joint operation in which they coordinated with
24 the San Diego Police Department. Defendant ESCAMILLA and his partner SOTO,
25 both fugitive recovery agents, engaged in frequent communication, coordination,
26 and planning with the S.D.P.D. These activities were directed at locating and
27 detaining decedent and Janie Richelle Sanders. On the date of Timothy Smith’s
28
21
1 death, ESCAMILLA and SOTO specifically searched in the Pacific Beach area of
2 San Diego, and shared the results of their efforts with S.D.P.D.
7 claim Timothy Smith’s pre-death damages. Plaintiffs have standing to claim
14 XI.
Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983
15 (Against Defendants Macey, Macey Bail Bonds, Escamilla, Legal Services
16 Bureau, and Soto For Violation of the 14th and 4th Amendment Rights of
Plaintiffs)
17
113. Defendants acted under color of state law by conducting a joint
18
venture with the San Diego Police Department. This conduct included
19
surveillance, provision of information to S.D.P.D. officials, securing and directing
20
the conduct of S.D.P.D. officials, distributing “wanted” posters of decedent with
21
false information for the purpose and with the result of the S.D.P.D. doing the
22
bidding of defendants under color of state law.
23
114. Defendants acted with the understanding that their provision of false
24
information about decedent Timothy Smith increased the likelihood of an
25
encounter in which excessive force would be used.
26
115. It was reasonably foreseeable to defendants that the use of the
27
inflammatory falsehood, which they employed in order to obtain the participation
28
22
1 of the S.D.P.D., would result in the use of such excessive force. The falsehoods
2 defendants used include, but are not limited to, the following:
3 1) The false assertion that decedent Timothy Smith was currently
4 “armed and dangerous;”
5 2) The false assertion that Timothy Smith was armed with a .35,
6 .38, .40, or .45 caliber pistol;
7 3) The false assertion that Timothy Smith carried an AK47 in his
8 backpack;
9 4) The false assertion that Timothy Smith had a long history of
10 violent offenses;
11 5) The false assertion that Timothy Smith’s record included the
12 offense of child molestation;
13 6) The false assertion that Timothy Smith’s record included an
14 assault with an AK47;
15 7) The false assertion that Timothy Smith had engaged in a
16 dangerous flight during a pursuit by Missouri State police;
17 8) The false assertion that Timothy Smith had left Missouri by
18 train while armed with an AK47;
19 9) The false assertion that Timothy Smith, if arrested, was “going
20 away for life.”
21 10) The false accusation that Timothy Smith had a criminal record
22 for “armed robbery”
23 116. Defendants’ falsehoods were provided in order to obtain the
24 assistance and joint participation of the San Diego Police Department in locating
25 and seizing Janie Sanders and Timothy Smith. The conduct of defendants was a
26 substantial factor in causing the death of Timothy Smith, which was a reasonably
27 foreseeable consequence of defendants’ actions.
28
23
1 XII.
PRAYER FOR
2 DAMAGES AND OTHER REMEDIES
3 WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS pray for judgment against DEFENDANTS
4 and relief as follows:
5 1. For compensatory damages, including special and general damages;
6 2. For exemplary and punitive damages against defendants HOLSLAG,
7 MACEY, ESCAMILLA, SOTO and LEGAL SERVICES BUREAU, INC. in an
8 amount to be proven at trial;
10 Cal.Civ.Code § 52.1(h);
13 6. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.
14
15
16
By: /s/ Eugene Iredale
17
/s/ Julia Yoo
18
19 TIMOTHY GENE SMITH, SANDY LYNN
SIMMONS, AND WYATT ALLEN
20 GUNNER SMITH
21
22
23 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
24 Plaintiffs demand a jury trial in this action.
25
26
27 By: /s/ Eugene Iredale
/s/ Julia Yoo
28
24
EXHIBIT 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
9
10 ESTATE OF TIMOTHY GENE SMITH, Case No.: 16-cv-2989-WQH-MSB
by his successor in interest Wyatt Allen
11
Gunner Smith; SANDY LYNN ORDER
12 SIMMONS; and WYATT ALLEN
GUNNER SMITH,
13
Plaintiffs,
14
v.
15
SCOTT HOLSLAG; NATALIE
16
ANN MACEY, as an individual
17 doing business as Macey Bail
Bonds; LEGAL SERVICE
18
BUREAU, INC., a California
19 domestic corporation doing business
as Global Fugitive Recovery; DAN
20
ESCAMILLA, as an individual and
21 on behalf of Legal Service Bureau,
Inc.; CITY OF SAN DIEGO;
22
DAVID BRECHT; ISMAEL SOTO,
23 as an individual; and DOES 1-50,
inclusive,
24
Defendants.
25
26 HAYES, Judge:
27 The matters before the Court are the Motions for Summary Judgment filed by
28 Defendants Dan Escamilla (ECF No. 215); Sergeant Scott Holslag and City of San Diego
1
16-cv-2989-WQH-MSB
1 (ECF No. 217); Natalie Ann Macey (ECF No. 219); and Sergeant David Brecht and City
2 of San Diego (ECF No. 220).
3 I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
4 On December 8, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint for damages based on the fatal
5 shooting of Timothy Gene Smith by San Diego Police Department (“SDPD”) Sergeant
6 Scott Holslag. (ECF No. 1). On March 1, 2019, a Third Amendment Complaint (“TAC”)
7 was filed by Plaintiffs Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith—Smith’s son; Sandy Lynn Simmons—
8 Smith’s mother; and Estate of Timothy Gene Smith (“Estate”) by Smith’s successor in
9 interest, Wyatt Allen Gunner Smith, against Defendants City of San Diego (the “City”);
10 SDPD Sergeant Scott Holslag; SDPD Sergeant David Brecht; bail bondsman Natalie Ann
11 Macey d/b/a Macey Bail Bonds (“Macey”); Legal Service Bureau, Inc. d/b/a Global
12 Fugitive Recovery (“Legal Service Bureau”); bail bondsman Dan Escamilla; and bail
13 bondsman Ismael Soto. (ECF No. 162).
14 Plaintiffs allege that in November 2015, bondsmen Macey, Escamilla, and Soto
15 fabricated a story that Smith was armed with a gun and had a history of violent crime.
16 Plaintiffs allege that Escamilla and Soto provided false information to SDPD officers to
17 engage their assistance in apprehending Smith’s partner, Janie Sanders, who failed to
18 appear in court after Macey paid her bail. Plaintiffs allege that on November 4, 2015,
19 Sergeant Brecht gave SDPD officers a “Wanted” poster prepared by Escamilla and told the
20 officers that Smith had felony warrants and was armed with a gun. Plaintiffs allege that at
21 approximately 2:45 p.m., Smith was cornered by several officers in Pacific Beach.
22 Plaintiffs allege that Smith was unarmed. Plaintiffs allege that Sergeant Holslag shot Smith
23 three times, killing him, as Smith “stood with his hands raised in the air, empty, while
24 turning to face the wall.” (Id. ¶ 70).
25 Plaintiffs bring the following claims: 1) all Plaintiffs against Defendant Sergeant
26 Holslag for violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution under 42
27 U.S.C. § 1983; 2) Plaintiffs Wyatt Smith and Simmons against Defendant Sergeant Holslag
28 for violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution under 42
2
16-cv-2989-WQH-MSB
1 U.S.C. § 1983; 3) Plaintiff Estate against Defendants Sergeant Holslag and the City for
2 violation of the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act (“Bane Act”), Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1; 4) all
3 Plaintiffs against Defendants Sergeant Holslag and the City for battery; 5) all Plaintiffs
4 against Defendants Sergeant Holslag, Sergeant Brecht, and the City for wrongful death
5 under section 377.60 of the California Code of Civil Procedure; 6) all Plaintiffs against
6 Defendants Macey, Escamilla, Soto, and Legal Service Bureau for conspiracy to violate
7 civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and 7) all Plaintiffs against Defendants Macey,
8 Escamilla, Soto, and Legal Service Bureau for violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth
9 Amendments under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs seek damages, including exemplary and
10 punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
11 On March 15, 2019, Defendants Macey, Sergeant Holslag, Sergeant Brecht, and the
12 City filed Answers to the TAC. (ECF Nos. 164, 165). On March 21, 2019, Defendant
13 Escamilla filed an Answer to the TAC. (ECF No. 168). On July 1, 2020, Defendant Legal
14 Service Bureau filed an Answer to the TAC. (ECF No. 210). Defendant Soto has not
15 appeared in this action.1
16 The parties engaged in fact discovery.
17 On August 17, 2020, Defendant Escamilla, proceeding pro se, filed a Motion for
18 Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 215). On August 28, 2020, Motions for Summary Judgment
19 were filed by Defendants Sergeant Holslag and the City (ECF No. 217); Defendant Macey
20 (ECF No. 219); and Defendants Sergeant Brecht and the City (ECF No. 220).
21 On October 5, 2020, Plaintiffs filed Oppositions to the Motions for Summary
22 Judgment filed by Defendants Sergeant Holslag and the City and Defendants Sergeant
23 Brecht and the City. (ECF Nos. 229, 230). On October 6, 2020, Plaintiffs filed Oppositions
24 to the Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Macey and Escamilla. (ECF
25 Nos. 234, 235).
26
27
1
On December 5, 2019, Plaintiffs filed Proof of Service as to Defendant Soto. (ECF No. 202). Defendant
28 Soto has not filed any responsive pleading.
3
16-cv-2989-WQH-MSB
1 On October 13, 2020, Defendants Sergeant Holslag, Sergeant Brecht, the City, and
2 Macey filed Replies in support of their Motions for Summary Judgment.2 (ECF Nos. 244-
3 247).
4 On November 12, 2020, the Court heard oral argument on the Motions for Summary
5 Judgment.
6 On November 30, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Supplemental Submission on the Civil
7 Conspiracy Cause of Action. (ECF No. 252). On December 14, 2020, Defendants Macey
8 and Escamilla filed Responses to the Supplemental Submission. (ECF Nos. 253, 254).
9 II. FACTS
10 Defendant Natalie Ann Macey is the owner of Macey Bail Bonds, a Missouri sole
11 proprietorship. On June 29, 2015, Macey posted $7,500.00 bail in Missouri for Janie
12 Sanders, who was charged with possession of a controlled substance. On July 8, 2015,
13 Sanders failed to appear at a hearing, and a warrant was issued for her arrest. Macey
14 attempted to locate Sanders. A “Wanted” poster was created that included a picture of
15 Sanders and her partner, Timothy Gene Smith. The poster stated that Sanders was wanted
16 for “bail jumping” and was “WITH TIMOTHY GENE SMITH CONSIDERED ARMED
17 AND EXTREMELY DANGEROUS.” (First Wanted Poster, Ex. 14 to Iredale Decl., ECF
18 No. 235-8 at 3).
19 Macey learned that Sanders and Smith might be in San Diego. Macey hired
20 California bail fugitive recovery agent Defendant Dan Escamilla, an employee and
21 shareholder of Defendant Legal Service Bureau, Inc., to apprehend Sanders. Defendant
22 Ismael Soto, an unlicensed bondsman in California, was also engaged to assist with
23 Sanders’ apprehension. Escamilla created a second “Wanted” poster with the picture of
24 Sanders and Smith. The poster stated that Sanders and Smith were “WANTED ON
25
26
27 2
Defendants Sergeant Holslag, Sergeant Brecht, the City, and Macey also submitted evidentiary
objections, which have been reviewed by the Court. (ECF Nos. 227, 244-3, 245-3, 247-3). The parties’
28 evidentiary objections do not affect this Order.
4
16-cv-2989-WQH-MSB
1 EXTRADITABLE FELONIES OUT OF MISSOURI.” (Second Wanted Poster, Ex. 17 to

2 Iredale Decl., ECF No. 234-10 at 2). The poster stated, “SUBJECTS KNOWN TO BE
3 HOMELESS AND ON FOOT IN THE PACIFIC BEACH AREA AS OF 11/4/15.
4 CAUTION: CI HAS ADVISED THAT SUBJECT SMITH RECENTLY LEFT
5 MISSOURI BY TRAIN ARMED WITH AN AK-47 and/or Revolver and is a convicted
6 felon with a long criminal history of violent crimes.” (Id.).
7 On November 3, 2015, Soto called SDPD and reported that two “fugitives,” Smith
8 and Sanders, had been traced to the Pacific Beach neighborhood. (Transcript of
9 COSD000370-PD15-0369.wav, Ex. 5 to Iredale Decl., ECF No. 229-8 at 1; Audio Rec. of
10 Soto Call, Disc Ex. 3A to Iredale Decl.). Soto told the dispatcher that Smith and Sanders
11 were “supposed to be armed.” (Transcript of COSD000370-PD15-0369.wav, Ex. 5 to
12 Iredale Decl., ECF No. 229-8 at 1; Audio Rec. of Soto Call, Disc Ex. 3A to Iredale Decl.).
13 Soto stated that “one of the fugitives is a little more serious then we’re used to dealing
14 with[,] [a]nd this guy’s going away for life[.]” (Transcript of COSD000370-PD15-
15 0369.wav, Ex. 5 to Iredale Decl., ECF No. 229-8 at 1; Audio Rec. of Soto Call, Disc Ex.
16 3A to Iredale Decl.). Soto stated that “everyone is telling us [Smith’s] carrying a loaded
17 .38 revolver and an AK-47.” (Transcript of COSD000370-PD15-0369.wav, Ex. 5 to Iredale
18 Decl., ECF No. 229-8 at 1; Audio Rec. of Soto Call, Disc Ex. 3A to Iredale Decl.). Soto
19 gave the dispatcher a description of Smith and Sanders but provided an incorrect birthdate
20 for Smith. At the time of the call, Smith had three outstanding warrants and a lengthy
21 history of felony offenses dating back to 1986, including second degree burglary, unlawful
22 use of a weapon, theft, fraud, forgery, and possession of a controlled substance. However,
23 the dispatcher was not able to locate any warrants for Smith using his name and the
24 birthdate provided by Soto.
25 Later on November 3, Escamilla called SDPD requesting police assistance.
26 Escamilla, Soto, and a third bondsman believed they located Smith and Sanders in a
27 bathroom at Fanuel Park in Pacific Beach. SDPD officers responded to the call, including
28 Defendant Sergeant David Brecht. The dispatcher confirmed the warrant for Sanders but
5
16-cv-2989-WQH-MSB
1 told the responding officers that as to Smith, “at least NCIC, there’s no warrants. There is
2 no warrants.” (Transcript of COSD000421-PD15-0369_51.wav, Ex. 5 to Iredale Decl.,
3 ECF No. 229-8 at 12; Audio Rec. of Police Radio, Disc Ex. 3A to Iredale Decl.). The
4 suspects in the bathroom at Fanuel Park were not Smith or Sanders. Escamilla gave
5 Sergeant Brecht either the second “Wanted” poster or the picture of Smith and Sanders
6 from the poster.
7 On the morning of November 4, 2015, Soto called SDPD and stated that he could
8 confirm an 800-meter radius of Smith and Sanders’ location. Soto stated, “[W]e got word
9 that the gentleman’s carrying an AK-47 in his bag . . . . They’re walking around with an
10 AK and they’re on drugs and I’m worried, ya know?” (Transcript of COSD000373-PD15-
11 0369_3.wav, Ex. 5 to Iredale Decl., ECF No. 229-8 at 16-17; Audio Rec. of Soto Call, Disc
12 Ex. 3D to Iredale Decl.). Soto stated, “Timothy Gene Smith has a 54 page rap sheet that
13 will blow your mind. From child molestation to forgery. I mean, this guy’s dangerous.
14 They’re both armed and on drugs. Apparently she carries a .38 and he carries an AK in his
15 backpack.” (Transcript of COSD000373-PD15-0369_3.wav, Ex. 5 to Iredale Decl., ECF
16 No. 229-8 at 16-17; Audio Rec. of Soto Call, Disc Ex. 3D to Iredale Decl.).
17 During the SDPD morning lineup, Sergeant Brecht gave copies of Smith and
18 Sanders’ photograph to his team of officers, including Ricardo Escalante and Benjamin
19 Douglas. Sergeant Brecht told the officers that Smith and Sanders were possibly armed.
20 Shortly before 3:00 p.m., Officers Escalante and Douglas were patrolling the 1700 block
21 of Garnet Avenue when they saw a male they believed was Smith. Officer Escalante
22 stepped out of the patrol car, and Smith fled on foot. Officer Escalante chased and lost sight
23 of Smith in a residential area of Pacific Beach.
24 Officer Escalante aired over the police radio that he was involved in a foot pursuit.
25 The officers gave a description of Smith and stated, “Multiple warrants of out state. He’s
26 possibly armed with a .38.” (Transcript of SDPD Dispatch Calls of 11-4-15, Ex. 4 to Sweda
27 Decl., ECF No. 220-10 at 6; Audio Rec. of Police Radio, Disc Ex. 3 to Sweda Decl.). The
28 dispatcher stated, “This might be the guy from yesterday . . . . He’s got multiple warrants
6
16-cv-2989-WQH-MSB
1 from out of state.” (Transcript of SDPD Dispatch Calls of 11-4-15, Ex. 4 to Sweda Decl.,
2 ECF No. 220-10 at 6; Audio Rec. of Police Radio, Disc Ex. 3 to Sweda Decl.). The
3 dispatcher relayed, “It’s a possible 10-35 subject”—armed and dangerous. (Transcript of
4 SDPD Dispatch Calls of 11-4-15, Ex. 4 to Sweda Decl., ECF No. 220-10 at 8, 9; Audio
5 Rec. of Police Radio, Disc Ex. 3 to Sweda Decl.). Multiple officers responded to the call,
6 including a lieutenant who responds to high priority calls, an ABLE police helicopter,
7 Sergeant Brecht, and Defendant Sergeant Scott Holslag.
8 Officers chased Smith to an area near 1636 Thomas Avenue, determined that he was
9 likely in a storage shed, and set up a perimeter. Sergeant Holslag arrived at the scene and
10 walked toward the entrance to the eastern side yard of 1636 Thomas Avenue with his police
11 dog. Sergeant Holslag announced, “San Diego Police! If you don’t come out you will be
12 bitten by a police dog!” (Holslag & City’s SOF, ECF No. 220-3 ¶ 33). Smith ran out of the
13 storage shed towards the fence separating 1636 and 1644 Thomas Avenue, as the officers
14 shouted. Smith was wearing tan shorts and was shirtless. Sergeant Holslag deployed the
15 police dog and gave the bite command. The dog bit Smith’s shoe but lost its grip as Smith
16 jumped the fence and climbed onto a ledge protruding from the exterior wall of 1644
17 Thomas Avenue. The officers continued to yell at Smith to put his hands up, to get on the
18 ground, to not reach, and to put his hands behind his back.
19 Sergeant Holslag states in his Declaration:
20 I saw [Smith] plunge both hands deep into his pants pockets. His left hand
appeared to me to be shallow, to knuckle-level. However, his right hand
21
plunged deep into his right pocket . . . . I thought he had a handgun in his
22 pocket and was reaching for it. The suspect looked straight at me with a
thousand-mile stare . . . . The suspect’s right hand started to come out of his
23
right pocket. I was fearful that he was going to pull a handgun. As his hand
24 came out to knuckle level, I was 100% convinced in the moment that he had
a gun and was going to shoot me.
25
26 (Holslag Decl., Ex. 1 to Sweda Decl., ECF No. 217-7 ¶¶ 32-34). Sergeant Holslag shot
27 Smith three times in his chest, right torso, and left torso, killing him. Smith was unarmed.
28 ///
7
16-cv-2989-WQH-MSB
1 III. LEGAL STANDARD

2 “A party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense—or
3 the part of each claim or defense—on which summary judgment is sought. The court shall
4 grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any
5 material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
6 56(a). A material fact is one that is relevant to an element of a claim or defense and whose
7 existence might affect the outcome of the suit. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v.
8 Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986). The materiality of a fact is determined
9 by the substantive law governing the claim or defense. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
10 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-24 (1986).
11 The moving party has the initial burden of demonstrating that summary judgment is
12 proper. See Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 153 (1970). Where the party moving
13 for summary judgment does not bear the burden of proof at trial, “the burden on the moving
14 party may be discharged by ‘showing’—that is, pointing out to the district court—that there
15 is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at
16 325; see also United Steelworkers v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 865 F.2d 1539, 1542-43 (9th
17 Cir. 1989) (“[O]n an issue where the plaintiff has the burden of proof, the defendant may
18 move for summary judgment by pointing to the absence of facts to support the plaintiff’s
19 claim. The defendant is not required to produce evidence showing the absence of a genuine
20 issue of material fact with respect to an issue where the plaintiff has the burden of proof.
21 Nor does Rule 56(c) require that the moving party support its motion with affidavits or
22 other similar materials negating the nonmoving party’s claim.” (citations omitted)).
23 If the moving party meets the initial burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party
24 to show that summary judgment is not appropriate. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256; Celotex,
25 477 U.S. at 322, 324. The nonmoving party cannot defeat summary judgment merely by
26 demonstrating “that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita,
27 475 U.S. at 586; see Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252 (“The mere existence of a scintilla of
28 evidence in support of the [nonmoving party’s] position will be insufficient.”). The
8
16-cv-2989-WQH-MSB
1 nonmoving party must “go beyond the pleadings and by her own affidavits, or by the
2 depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, designate specific facts
3 showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324 (citations omitted).
4 The nonmoving party’s evidence is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be
5 drawn in its favor. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256.
6 IV. JUDICIAL NOTICE
7 Defendants Sergeant Holslag, Sergeant Brecht, and the City request that the Court
8 take judicial notice of the warrant for Smith issued on June 27, 2015, in connection with
9 Case No. 15RY-CR00255, the warrant for Smith issued on July 13, 2015, in connection
10 with Case No. W24155277, the warrant for Smith issued on October 14, 2015, in
11 connection with Case No. 15CA-CR00999, and Smith’s conviction history. (ECF Nos.
12 217-3, 220-2). Under Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the court may take judicial
13 notice of “matters of public record,” and facts that “can be accurately and readily
14 determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid.
15 201(b)(2); Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted).
16 Smith’s arrest warrants and conviction history are matters of public record, and Plaintiffs
17 do not dispute their authenticity. Defendants’ requests for judicial notice are granted.
18 V. DEFENDANTS SERGEANT HOLSLAG, SERGEANT BRECHT, AND THE
19 CITY’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
20 Defendant Sergeant Holslag moves for summary judgment on the first claim for
21 violation of the Fourth Amendment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the second claim for
22 violation of the Fourteenth Amendment under 42 U.S.C. § 19833. Defendants Sergeant
23 Holslag and the City move for summary judgment on the third claim for violation of the
24 Bane Act and the fourth claim for battery. Defendants Sergeant Holslag, Sergeant Brecht,
25 and the City move for summary judgment on the fifth claim for wrongful death.
26
27
3
Plaintiffs have represented that they will dismiss the Fourteenth Amendment claim. (See ECF No. 229
28 at 29). The Court does not address the Fourteenth Amendment claim.
9
16-cv-2989-WQH-MSB
1 a. Claim 1 - Fourth Amendment

2 Defendant Sergeant Holslag contends that the individual heirs lack standing to bring
3 a Fourth Amendment claim. Sergeant Holslag contends that qualified immunity protects
4 him from liability. Sergeant Holslag contends that the use of deadly force was reasonable
5 because Smith was “possibly armed” with a concealable handgun, resisted arrest, and
6 “reached into his pockets and drew his hand in a threatening manner,” leading Sergeant
7 Holslag and other SDPD officers to “fear for their lives.” (ECF No. 217-1 at 18-19).
8 Sergeant Holslag contends that at the time of the shooting, it was not clearly established
9 that the use of deadly force was unconstitutional under these circumstances.
10 Plaintiff contend that they have standing. Plaintiffs contend that the use of deadly
11 force was unreasonable. Plaintiffs contend that at the time of the shooting, Smith was
12 unarmed, Smith was not threatening officers or attempting to evade arrest, and Sergeant
13 Holslag gave no warning prior to shooting Smith. Plaintiffs contend that at the time of the
14 shooting, clearly established federal law prevented officers from shooting an unarmed man
15 who did not pose an immediate threat to police or others.
16 i. Standing of Individual Heirs
17 “‘Fourth Amendment rights are personal rights which . . . may not be vicariously
18 asserted.’” Moreland v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t., 159 F.3d 365, 369 (9th Cir. 1998)
19 (alteration in original) (quoting Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 174 (1969)), as
20 amended (Nov. 24, 1998). “Thus, the general rule is that only the person whose Fourth
21 Amendment rights were violated can sue to vindicate those rights.” Id. However,
22 [i]n § 1983 actions, . . . the survivors of an individual killed as a result of an
officer’s excessive use of force may assert a Fourth Amendment claim on that
23
individual’s behalf if the relevant state’s law authorizes a survival action. The
24 party seeking to bring a survival action bears the burden of demonstrating that
a particular state’s law authorizes a survival action and that the plaintiff meets
25
that state’s requirements for bringing a survival action.
26
Hayes v. Cty. of San Diego, 736 F.3d 1223, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 2013) (second alteration in
27
original) (quoting Moreland, 159 F.3d at 369).
28
10
16-cv-2989-WQH-MSB
1 California’s statutory requirements for standing to bring a survival action are

stated under California Code of Civil Procedure § 377.30: “A cause of action
2
that survives the death of the person entitled to commence an action or
3 proceeding passes to the decedent’s successor in interest . . ., and an action
may be commenced by the decedent’s personal representative or, if none, by
4
the decedent’s successor in interest.”
5
Id. at 1229 (quoting Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 377.30).
6
In this case, all Plaintiffs bring a claim against Sergeant Holslag under § 1983 for
7
violation of Smith’s Fourth Amendment rights. The only proper Plaintiff under state law
8
on this claim is Smith’s Estate, through successor in interest Wyatt Smith. The Court
9
concludes that individual heirs Simmons and Wyatt Smith lack standing to bring a Fourth
10
Amendment claim against Sergeant Holslag.
11
ii. Qualified Immunity
12
The doctrine of qualified immunity “protects government officials ‘from liability for
13
civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or
14
constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Pearson v.
15
Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818
16
(1982)). “Because qualified immunity is an ‘immunity from suit rather than a mere defense
17
to liability . . . it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.’” Id.
18
(quoting Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985)). “Accordingly, ‘we repeatedly
19
have stressed the importance of resolving immunity questions at the earliest possible stage
20
in litigation.’” Id. at 232 (quoting Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 227 (1991) (per curiam)).
21
“The qualified immunity inquiry consists of two parts: (1) ‘whether the facts that a
22
plaintiff has alleged . . . or shown . . . make out a violation of a constitutional right,’ and
23
(2) ‘whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of defendant’s alleged
24
misconduct.’” Wilkinson v. Torres, 610 F.3d 546, 550 (9th Cir. 2010) (alterations in
25
original) (quoting Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232). Courts have “discretion in deciding which of
26
the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first in light of the
27
circumstances in the particular case at hand.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236.
28
11
16-cv-2989-WQH-MSB
1 1. Violation of the Fourth Amendment

2 To bring a claim against an individual defendant under § 1983, a plaintiff must show
3 “(1) that a person acting under color of state law committed the conduct at issue, and (2)
4 that the conduct deprived the claimant of some right, privilege, or immunity protected by
5 the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 632-33 (9th
6 Cir. 1988) (citation omitted). “A person deprives another ‘of a constitutional right, within
7 the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s
8 affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes
9 the deprivation of which [the plaintiff complains].’” Id. at 633 (alteration in original)
10 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)).
11 The Fourth Amendment protects the people against “unreasonable searches and
12 seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. “Apprehension by deadly force is a seizure subject to
13 the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement.” Wilkinson, 610 F.3d at 550. An
14 officer may use only the amount of force that is “‘objectively reasonable’ in light of the
15 facts and circumstances confronting” the officer. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397
16 (1989); see Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1985). “The reasonableness of a
17 particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the
18 scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Wilkinson, 610 F.3d at 550 (quoting
19 Graham, 490 U.S. at 396). “In addition, ‘[t]he calculus of reasonableness must embody
20 allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second
21 judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the
22 amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.’” Id. (alteration in original)
23 (quoting Graham, 490 U.S. at 396-97). “Whether the use of deadly force is reasonable is
24 highly fact-specific, but the inquiry is an objective one.” Id. at 551 (citations omitted).
25 The court “approach[es] an excessive force claim in three stages.” Thompson v.
26 Rahr, 885 F.3d 582, 586 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing Espinoza v. City & Cty. of San Francisco,
27 598 F.3d 528, 537 (9th Cir. 2010)).
28 First, we assess the severity of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth
12
16-cv-2989-WQH-MSB
1 Amendment rights by evaluating the type and amount of force inflicted. Then,
we evaluate the government’s interests by assessing the severity of the crime;
2
whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the officers’ or public’s
3 safety; and whether the suspect was resisting arrest or attempting to escape.
Finally, we balance the gravity of the intrusion on the individual against the
4
government’s need for that intrusion.
5
Id. (citations omitted).
6
The “most important single element” is “whether the suspect poses an immediate
7
threat to the safety of the officers or others.” Chew v. Gates, 27 F.3d 1432, 1441 (9th Cir.
8
1994). An officer “may not use deadly force to apprehend a suspect where the suspect
9
poses no immediate threat to the officer or others.” Wilkinson, 610 F.3d at 551 (quoting
10
Garner, 471 U.S. at 11). However, “it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent
11
escape using deadly force ‘[w]here the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect
12
poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others.’” Id. (alteration in
13
original) (quoting Garner, 471 U.S. at 11). “Only information known to the officer at the
14
time the conduct occurred is relevant.” Nehad v. Browder, 929 F.3d 1125, 1132 (9th Cir.
15
2019) (citing Cty. of Los Angeles v. Mendez, 137 S. Ct. 1539, 1546-47 (2017); Glenn v.
16
Washington Cty., 673 F.3d 864, 873 n.8 (9th Cir. 2011)), reh’g denied, 2019 U.S. App.
17
LEXIS 29633 (9th Cir. Oct. 2, 2019), cert. denied, Browder v. Nehad, 2020 U.S. LEXIS
18
4507 (Oct. 5, 2020).
19
“[I]n the deadly force context ‘the person most likely to rebut the officers’ version
20
of events—the one killed—can’t testify.’” Estate of Elkins v. Pelayo, 737 F. App’x 830,
21
835 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Cruz v. City of Anaheim, 765 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir. 2014)).
22
Accordingly, the court “cannot simply accept what may be a self-serving account by the
23
police officer.” Id. (quoting Cruz, 765 F.3d at 1079). The court “carefully examine[s] ‘all
24
the evidence in the record, such as medical reports, contemporaneous statements by the
25
officer and the available physical evidence, . . . to determine whether the officer’s story is
26
internally consistent and consistent with other known facts.’” Gonzalez v. City of Anaheim,
27
747 F.3d 789, 795 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (second alteration in original) (quoting Scott
28
13
16-cv-2989-WQH-MSB
1 v. Henrich, 39 F.3d 912, 915 (9th Cir. 1994)). The court “must also examine ‘circumstantial
2 evidence that, if believed, would tend to discredit the police officer’s story.’” Id. (quoting
3 Scott, 39 F.3d at 915).
4 In this case, on November 4, 2015, Smith fled from Officer Escalante, leading him
5 on a foot chase through a residential area of Pacific Beach. Sergeant Holslag states in his
6 Declaration that just before 3:00 p.m., as he was refueling his vehicle after a lengthy SWAT
7 standoff, he heard the radio call for the foot pursuit. (Holslag Decl., Ex. 1 to Sweda Decl.,
8 ECF No. 217-7 ¶ 7). Sergeant Holslag states that he “heard that the suspect was believed
9 to be possibly armed with a .38 caliber handgun.” (Id. ¶ 10). Sergeant Holslag states that
10 he heard that Smith was wanted for “multiple warrants out of state.” (Id. ¶ 11). Sergeant
11 Holslag testified at his deposition that he understood that Smith was wanted for a felony
12 warrant but did not know what crime Smith had committed. (Holslag Dep., Ex. 9 to Iredale
13 Decl., ECF No. 229-12 at 58:22-59:13).
14 After officers arrived at the scene and set up a perimeter around the storage shed
15 where Smith was hiding, Smith ran out of the shed, jumped the fence separating 1636 and
16 1644 Thomas Avenue, and climbed onto a ledge protruding from the exterior wall of 1644
17 Thomas Avenue. Smith was wearing tan shorts and was shirtless. Video recordings of the
18 incident include video from body worn cameras by Officers Escalante, Douglas,
19 Christopher Bernard, John White, Dustin Welsh, Corey Harris, and Brandon Orr, and video
20 from the ABLE police helicopter. Officers shouted various commands to Smith at the same
21 time, seconds before the shooting, including “Get your hands up;” “Let me see your
22 hands;” “Get on the ground;” “Don’t do it;” “Do not reach;” “Get your hands up;” “Keep
23 your hands up;” and “Put your hands behind your back.” (See, e.g., Transcript of Bernard
24 Body Worn Camera Video, Ex. 4 to Iredale Decl., ECF No. 229-7 at 5-6; ABLE and Body
25 Worn Camera Video Recordings, Disc Ex. 2 to Iredale Decl.; Body Worn Camera Video
26 Recordings, Disc Exs. 10, 13, 16, 19 to Sweda Decl.; see also Escalante Decl., Ex. 9 to
27 Sweda Decl., ECF No. 217-14 ¶ 23; Bernard Decl., Ex. 12 to Sweda Decl., ECF No. 217-
28 17 ¶ 16; White Decl., Ex. 18 to Sweda Decl., ECF No. 217-23 ¶ 8).
14
16-cv-2989-WQH-MSB
1 Sergeant Holslag states in his Declaration:

2 I saw [Smith] plunge both hands deep into his pants pockets. His left hand
appeared to me to be shallow, to knuckle-level. However, his right hand
3
plunged deep into his right pocket . . . . I thought he had a handgun in his
4 pocket and was reaching for it. The suspect looked straight at me with a
thousand-mile stare . . . . The suspect’s right hand started to come out of his
5
right pocket. I was fearful that he was going to pull a handgun. As his hand
6 came out to knuckle level, I was 100% convinced in the moment that he had
a gun and was going to shoot me. In response I recall firing two to three
7
rounds. I later learned I fired three rounds. I saw my first round hit him in the
8 chest. Based on information and belief, I shot two more rounds, I then saw
him fall to the ground.
9
10 (Holslag Decl., Ex. 1 to Sweda Decl., ECF No. 217-7 ¶¶ 32-34). Officer Bernard states in
11 his Declaration:
12 The suspect’s eyes were wide open and wild looking. He had what I call a
thousand-yard stare. He was looking around with his hands shoved into his
13
pockets, reaching frantically in his pockets as if he was looking for something.
14 Then I saw the suspect start to pull his hands out from his pockets. I thought
I saw his left hand come out first. I saw something fall from his pocket as his
15
hand was coming out. As I was processing this, simultaneously making the
16 decision whether to shoot, I heard what I thought was two rounds fired. The
suspect fell to the ground.
17
18 (Bernard Decl., Ex. 12 to Sweda Decl., ECF No. 217-17 ¶ 18). Officer Welsh states in his
19 Declaration:
20 After [Smith] looked around briefly, I saw him put his right hand into his right
pocket pretty quickly, and then make a gripping of an object motion [to] pull
21
something out. I did not know if he had an object in his hand and if so, I did
22 not know what the object was. His motions while putting his hands into his
pockets and pulling them from his pockets were rapid. He was not standing
23
casually with his hands in his pockets. This was a frantic confrontation.
24 Multiple officers were yelling commands at him. I did not observe him
comply with any police commands. When the suspect quickly pulled his hand
25
out of his pocket, that is when I heard three shots fired. The suspect fell from
26 the shed.
27
(Welsh Decl., Ex. 21 to Sweda Decl., ECF No. 217-26 ¶¶ 7-8).
28
15
16-cv-2989-WQH-MSB
1 Officer Escalante states in his Declaration that he saw Smith turn to face the officers
2 and “saw his hands move down to his waist area, around his pockets.” (Escalante Decl.,
3 Ex. 9 to Sweda Decl., ECF No. 217-14 ¶ 21). Escalante states that he “considered whether
4 [Smith] was possibly reaching for something but saw Sergeant Holslag draw his firearm.”
5 (Id.). Escalante states that he was looking away when the three shots were fired. (Id. ¶ 24).
6 Officer White states in his Declaration that he “saw the subject reach for his pocket,” heard
7 the officers give commands to “stop reaching,” and then “heard three shots.” (White Decl.,
8 Ex. 18 to Sweda Decl., ECF No. 217-23 ¶ 8). Smith was unarmed at the time of the
9 shooting.
10 Sergeant Holslag used deadly force, “implicat[ing] the highest level of Fourth
11 Amendment interests.” A.K.H. ex rel. Landeros v. City of Tustin, 837 F.3d 1005, 1011 (9th
12 Cir. 2016). The most severe crime that SDPD had probable cause to believe Smith
13 committed at the time of the shooting was resisting arrest—a misdemeanor. See Cal. Pen.
14 Code § 148. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, at the time of the
15 shooting Smith had climbed onto a ledge and was standing still. A reasonable juror could
16 conclude that at the time of the shooting Smith did not pose an immediate threat to Sergeant
17 Holslag or anyone else. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, a
18 reasonable juror could conclude that the severity of Smith’s crime and Smith’s actions did
19 not render the use of deadly force reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. See Thompson,
20 885 F.3d at 586 (citations omitted); see also Nehad, 929 F.3d at 1136 (“Even if Nehad had
21 made felonious threats or committed a serious crime prior to Browder’s arrival, he was
22 indisputably not engaged in any such conduct when Browder arrived, let alone when
23 Browder fired his weapon. A juror could, therefore, conclude that the severity of Nehad’s
24 crimes, whether characterized as a misdemeanor or an already completed felony, did not
25 render Browder’s use of deadly force reasonable.”). A reasonable juror could conclude that
26 Sergeant Holslag’s use of deadly force was objectively unreasonable under the Fourth
27 Amendment.
28 ///
16
16-cv-2989-WQH-MSB
1 2. Clearly Established Federal Law

2 “A Government official’s conduct violates clearly established law when, at the time
3 of the challenged conduct, ‘[t]he contours of [a] right [are] sufficiently clear’ that every
4 ‘reasonable official would [have understood] that what he is doing violates that right.’”
5 Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 741 (2011) (alterations in original) (quoting Anderson
6 v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987)). “This is not to say that an official action is
7 protected by qualified immunity unless the very action in question has previously been held
8 unlawful, but it is to say that in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness must be
9 apparent.” Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640 (citation omitted). “We do not require a case directly
10 on point, but existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question
11 beyond debate.” Ashcroft, 563 U.S. at 741.
12 “[F]ew things in our case law are as clearly established as the principle that an officer
13 may not ‘seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead’ in the absence of
14 ‘probable cause to believe that the [ ] suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm . . .
15 .’” Torres v. City of Madera, 648 F.3d 1119, 1128 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Garner, 471
16 U.S. at 11); see Nehad, 929 F.3d at 1141 (holding that the “prohibition on the use of deadly
17 force” where the suspect “was unarmed, had not said anything, was not threatening anyone,
18 and posed little to no danger to [the officer] or anyone else” was “clearly established in
19 2015”); Estate of Lopez v. Gelhaus, 871 F.3d 998, 1020 (9th Cir. 2017) (explaining that
20 the officer had “fair notice [in 2013] that the use of deadly force is unreasonable where the
21 victim does not directly threaten the officer with the gun”), reh’g denied, 2017 U.S. App.
22 LEXIS 26742 (9th Cir. Dec. 22, 2017), cert. denied, Gelhaus v. Estate of Lopez, 2018 U.S.
23 LEXIS 3898 (June 25, 2018); see also George v. Morris, 736 F.3d at 832, 838-39 (9th Cir.
24 2013) (holding that a reasonable fact finder could find the use of deadly force
25 constitutionally excessive where the victim held a gun pointed down, the victim did not
26 take any action that could be viewed as objectively threatening, and the officers gave no
27 warning); Harris v. Roderick, 126 F.3d 1189, 1204 (9th Cir. 1997) (“Law enforcement
28 officials may not kill suspects who do not pose an immediate threat to their safety or to the
17
16-cv-2989-WQH-MSB
1 safety of others simply because they are armed.”); Curnow v. Ridgecrest Police, 952 F.2d
2 321, 325 (9th Cir. 1991) (“[T]he police officers could not reasonably have believed the use
3 of deadly force was lawful because [the victim] did not point the gun at the officers and
4 apparently was not facing them when they shot him the first time.”).
5 In this case, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, Sergeant
6 Holslag shot Smith within a matter of seconds and without warning, even though Smith
7 was unarmed, was not threatening anyone, and did not pose a danger to Sergeant Holslag
8 or anyone else. The Court concludes that on November 4, 2015, Sergeant Holslag was on
9 notice that under the circumstances reasonably presented by Plaintiffs, the use of deadly
10 force against Smith would be objectively unreasonable. Further, although qualified
11 immunity may apply where the government official makes a reasonable “mistake of fact,”
12 Pearson, 555 U.S. at 231 (citation omitted), Smith’s actions and whether Sergeant Holslag
13 could have reasonably perceived a threat to himself or others are disputed questions of fact
14 that “preclude a grant of summary judgment on qualified immunity.” Nehad, 929 F.3d at
15 1140; see Morales v. Fry, 873 F.3d 817, 824 (9th Cir. 2017). The Court concludes that
16 Sergeant Holslag is not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The
17 Motion for Summary Judgment on the claim against Sergeant Holslag under § 1983 for
18 violation of the Fourth Amendment is granted as to the claim by individual heirs Simmons
19 and Wyatt Smith and denied as to the claim by the Estate.
20 b. Claim 3 - Bane Act
21 Plaintiff Estate brings a claim against Sergeant Holslag and the City for violation of
22 the Bane Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1. Plaintiffs assert that Sergeant Holslag interfered by
23 threats, intimidation, or coercion with Smith’s constitutional right to be free from excessive
24 force and with Smith’s right to bodily integrity. Plaintiffs assert that the City is liable
25 because Sergeant Holslag was acting within the course and scope of his employment.
26 Defendants Sergeant Holslag and the City contend that the Bane Act claim fails
27 because Sergeant Holslag did not violate Smith’s Fourth Amendment rights or act with an
28 intent to violate Smith’s Fourth Amendment rights. Plaintiffs contend that there is a
18
16-cv-2989-WQH-MSB
1 genuine issue of material fact as to whether Sergeant Holslag violated Smith’s Fourth
2 Amendment rights, and a reasonable juror could conclude that Sergeant Holslag acted with
3 reckless disregard for Smith’s rights.
4 The Bane Act “provides a cause of action for violations of a plaintiff’s state or
5 federal civil rights committed by ‘threats, intimidation, or coercion.’” Chaudhry v. City of
6 Los Angeles, 751 F.3d 1096, 1105 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1). “[T]he
7 Bane Act does not require the ‘threat, intimidation or coercion’ element of the claim to be
8 transactionally independent from the constitutional violation alleged.” Reese v. Cty. of
9 Sacramento, 888 F.3d 1030, 1043 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing Cornell v. City & Cty. of San
10 Francisco, 17 Cal. App. 5th 766, 798 (2017), modified by 2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 1018
11 (Nov. 17, 2017), review denied, 2018 Cal. LEXIS 1730 (Feb. 28, 2018)), as corrected (May
12 3, 2018), reh’g denied, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 19905 (9th Cir. July 18, 2018). However,
13 proving a Fourth Amendment violation alone does not “vicariously trigger[ ] Bane Act
14 liability. Instead, proving a Bane Act claim [ ] requires specific intent to violate protected
15 rights[.]” Sandoval v. Cty. of Sonoma, 912 F.3d 509, 520 (9th Cir. 2018), reh’g denied,
16 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 5100 (9th Cir. Feb. 21, 2019), cert. denied, Cty. of Sonoma v.
17 Sandoval, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 5757 (Oct. 7, 2019). “Reckless disregard of the ‘right at issue’
18 is all that [i]s necessary” to demonstrate specific intent. Cornell, 17 Cal. App. 5th at 804.
19 In this case, the claim against Sergeant Holslag and the City for violation of the Bane
20 Act is based on the same facts as the claim for excessive force under the Fourth
21 Amendment. The Court has concluded that, viewing the facts in the light most favorable
22 to Plaintiffs, a reasonable juror could conclude that Sergeant Holslag acted unreasonably
23 under the Fourth Amendment when he shot and killed Smith. From these same facts, a
24 reasonable juror could conclude that Sergeant Holslag acted with reckless disregard for
25 Smith’s rights. The Motion for Summary Judgment on the claim against Sergeant Holslag
26 and the City for violation of the Bane Act is denied.
27 ///
28 ///
19
16-cv-2989-WQH-MSB
1 c. Claim 4 - Battery
2 All Plaintiffs bring a claim against Sergeant Holslag and the City for battery.
3 Plaintiffs assert that Sergeant Holslag committed a battery when he shot and killed Smith
4 and that the City is vicariously liable for Sergeant Holslag’s actions.
5 Defendants Sergeant Holslag and the City contend that the battery claim fails
6 because Sergeant Holslag’s actions were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
7 Sergeant Holslag and the City further contend that the individual heirs lack standing to
8 bring a battery claim. Plaintiffs contend that there is an issue of material fact as to whether
9 Sergeant Holslag’s actions were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, so there is also
10 an issue of fact as to whether Sergeant Holslag committed battery. Plaintiffs contend that
11 they have standing.
12 State law claims for battery are analyzed under the same standard as claims for
13 excessive force under the Fourth Amendment. See Edson v. City of Anaheim, 63 Cal. App.
14 4th 1269, 1273 (1998) (“A peace officer who uses unreasonable or excessive force in
15 making a lawful arrest or detention commits a battery upon the person being arrested or
16 detained as to such excessive force.”). In this case, the claim against Sergeant Holslag and
17 the City for battery is based on the same facts as the claim for excessive force under the
18 Fourth Amendment. The Court has concluded that, viewing the facts in the light most
19 favorable to Plaintiffs, a reasonable juror could conclude that Sergeant Holslag acted
20 unreasonably under the Fourth Amendment when he shot and killed Smith. Accordingly,
21 a reasonable juror could conclude that Sergeant Holslag committed a battery. However,
22 individual heirs lack standing to bring this survival action claim. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code
23 § 377.30; Hayes, 736 F.3d at 1229. The Motion for Summary Judgment on the claim
24 against Sergeant Holslag and the City for battery is granted as to the claim by individual
25 heirs Simmons and Wyatt Smith and denied as to the claim by the Estate.
26 d. Claim 5 - Wrongful Death
27 All Plaintiffs bring a claim against Sergeant Holslag, Sergeant Brecht, and the City
28 for wrongful death under section 377.60 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.
20
16-cv-2989-WQH-MSB
1 Plaintiffs assert that Sergeant Holslag committed a battery against Smith, causing his death.
2 Plaintiffs assert that Sergeant Holslag was negligent in his use of excessive force. Plaintiffs
3 assert that Sergeant Holslag and Sergeant Brecht negligently accepted unsubstantiated and
4 false information, which was a substantial factor in causing Smith’s death. Plaintiffs assert
5 that the City is vicariously liable for Sergeant Holslag and Sergeant Brecht’s actions.
6 i. Standing of Individual Heirs
7 Defendants Sergeant Holslag, Sergeant Brecht, and the City contend that the
8 individual heirs lack standing to bring a wrongful death claim. Plaintiffs contend that they
9 have standing, and Simmons was financially dependent on Smith sufficient to confer
10 standing.
11 “In California, an action for wrongful death is governed solely by statute, and the
12 right to bring such an action is limited to those persons identified therein.” Scott v.
13 Thompson, 184 Cal. App. 4th 1506, 1510 (2010), as modified on denial of reh’g (June 25,
14 2010). Standing to sue for wrongful death is governed by section 377.60 of the California
15 Code of Civil Procedure, which authorizes a cause of action “by any of the following
16 persons or by the decedent’s personal representative on their behalf: (a) The decedent’s
17 surviving . . . children, . . . or if there is no surviving issue of the decedent, the persons
18 including the surviving spouse or domestic partner, who would be entitled to the property
19 of the decedent by intestate succession.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 377.60(a).
20 Generally, where a decedent leaves issue, “his parents would not be his heirs at all
21 and therefore not entitled to maintain [a wrongful death] action at all.” Chavez v.
22 Carpenter, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1433, 1440 (2001) (citations omitted). However, “[r]egardless
23 of their status as heirs, parents may sue for the wrongful death of their child ‘if they were
24 dependent on the decedent.’” Id. at 1445 (quoting Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 377.60(b)).
25 “[D]ependence refers to financial support,” which “generally presents a question of fact.”
26 Id. (citations omitted). The plaintiff must present evidence that at the time of the child’s
27 death, the surviving parents “were actually dependent, to some extent, upon the decedent
28 for the necessities of life.” Hazelwood v. Hazelwood, 57 Cal. App. 3d 693, 698 (1976).
21
16-cv-2989-WQH-MSB
1 [A] parent cannot claim they are dependent within the meaning of Code of
Civil Procedure section 377 if they receive financial support from their
2
children which merely makes available to them some of the niceties of life
3 they might not otherwise be able to afford. But, if a parent receives financial
support from their child which aids them in obtaining the things, such as
4
shelter, clothing, food and medical treatment, which one cannot and should
5 not do without, the parent is dependent upon their child.
6
Perry v. Medina, 192 Cal. App. 3d 603, 610 (1987).
7
In this case, Wyatt Smith is the surviving child of Smith and has standing to bring a
8
wrongful death claim as Smith’s heir. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 377.60(a). Simmons is
9
the surviving parent of Smith. Simmons testified at her deposition that when Smith stayed
10
with her, he always “helped [her] out” and gave her money for groceries and medicine.
11
(Simmons Dep., Ex. 26 to Sweda Decl., ECF No. 217-31 at 29:23-30:1). Simmons testified
12
that Smith did not give her “regular financial assistance” and did not send her money when
13
he was not staying with her. (Id. at 30:6-9). Plaintiffs have failed to present evidence
14
sufficient for a reasonable juror to conclude that Simmons was financially dependent, to
15
some extent, on Smith for the necessities of life. See Hazelwood, 57 Cal. App. 3d at 698.
16
The Court concludes that Simmons lacks standing to bring a wrongful death claim.
17
ii. Sergeants Holslag & Brecht
18
Defendants Sergeant Holslag, Sergeant Brecht, and the City contend that the
19
wrongful death claim fails because Sergeant Holslag’s actions were reasonable, Sergeant
20
Brecht did not owe any duty to Smith, and Sergeant Brecht’s actions did not cause Smith’s
21
death. Plaintiffs contend that a reasonable juror could conclude that Sergeant Holslag’s
22
actions were unreasonable under the circumstances of this case. Plaintiffs contend that
23
Sergeant Brecht caused a violation of Smith’s rights by providing false, misleading, and
24
unverified information about Smith to SDPD officers and failing to correct officers that
25
repeated the information on the police radio. Plaintiffs contend that Sergeant Holslag was
26
preconditioned to believe that Smith would shoot and kill him as a result of Sergeant
27
Brecht’s actions.
28
22
16-cv-2989-WQH-MSB
1 “The elements of the cause of action for wrongful death are the tort (negligence or
2 other wrongful act), the resulting death, and the damages, consisting of the pecuniary loss
3 suffered by the heirs.” Quiroz v. Seventh Ave. Ctr., 140 Cal. App. 4th 1256, 1264 (2006)
4 (emphasis omitted) (citation omitted). When a plaintiff’s wrongful death claim is premised
5 on a defendant’s negligence, the plaintiff must establish the standard elements of
6 negligence to prevail. See Hayes, 736 F.3d at 1231. “[I]n order to prove facts sufficient to
7 support a finding of negligence, a plaintiff must show that [the] defendant had a duty to
8 use due care, that he breached that duty, and that the breach was the proximate or legal
9 cause of the resulting injury.” Hayes v. Cty. of San Diego, 57 Cal. 4th 622, 629 (2013)
10 (alterations in original) (quoting Nally v. Grace Comm’y Church, 47 Cal. 3d 278, 292
11 (1988)).
12 The California Supreme Court “has long recognized that peace officers have a duty
13 to act reasonably when using deadly force.” Id. (citations omitted). “The reasonableness of
14 an officer’s conduct is determined in light of the totality of the circumstances.” Id. This
15 standard is “broader than the federal Fourth Amendment law, which tends to focus more
16 narrowly on the moment when deadly force is used.” Id. at 639.
17 There will virtually always be a range of conduct that is reasonable. As long
as an officer’s conduct falls within the range of conduct that is reasonable
18
under the circumstances, there is no requirement that he or she choose the
19 “most reasonable” action or the conduct that is the least likely to cause harm
and at the same time the most likely to result in the successful apprehension
20
of a violent suspect, in order to avoid liability for negligence. It would be
21 unreasonable to require police officers in the field to engage in the sort of
complex calculus that would be necessary to determine the “best” or most
22
effective and least dangerous method of handling an immediate and dangerous
23 situation, particularly when officers are forced to make split-second decisions
under tense and often perilous conditions.
24
25 Brown v. Ransweiler, 171 Cal. App. 4th 516, 537 (2009).
26 Law enforcement personnel’s tactical conduct and the decisions preceding the
use of deadly force are relevant considerations under California law in
27
determining whether the use of deadly force gives rise to negligence liability.
28 Such liability can arise, for example, if the tactical conduct and decisions
23
16-cv-2989-WQH-MSB
1 show, as part of the totality of the circumstances, that the use of deadly force
was unreasonable.
2
3 Hayes, 57 Cal. 4th at 639. Summary judgment is appropriate when, viewing the facts most
4 favorably to the plaintiff, “no reasonable juror could find negligence.” Id. at 632.
5 In this case, the cause of action against Sergeant Holslag for wrongful death is based
6 on Sergeant Holslag shooting and killing Smith. See id. at 630 (“[T]his case involves only
7 a single indivisible cause of action, seeking recovery for a single wrong—the shooting
8 itself.”). The Court has concluded that a reasonable juror could conclude that Sergeant
9 Holslag did not act reasonably under the Fourth Amendment and committed battery.
10 Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, a reasonable juror could conclude
11 that under the totality of the circumstances Sergeant Holslag was negligent in shooting
12 Smith. Sergeant Holslag is not entitled to summary judgment on the wrongful death claim.
13 Sergeant Brecht and the City contend that Sergeant Brecht took no preshooting
14 actions that caused Sergeant Holslag to shoot Smith. Sergeant Brecht and the City contend
15 that providing officer safety information about a possibly armed and dangerous suspect did
16 not create a dangerous situation that was the proximate cause of Smith’s death. Plaintiffs
17 contend that Sergeant Brecht created a dangerous situation that resulted in Officer Holslag
18 shooting Smith by providing unverified information about Smith to SDPD officers.
19 Sergeant Brecht responded to the call that Smith and Sanders were possibly at Fanuel
20 Park on the day before the shooting. Sergeant Brecht spoke to Escamilla at the park, and
21 Escamilla gave Sergeant Brecht either the second “Wanted” poster or the picture of Smith
22 and Sanders from the poster. Sergeant Brecht states in his Declaration that on November
23 4, 2015, he gave copies of the photograph of Smith and Sanders to his squad at the lineup
24 and “provided information about Smith and Sanders . . . for officer safety reasons[.]”
25 (Brecht Decl., Ex. 1 to Sweda Decl., ECF No. 220-7 ¶ 10). Sergeant Brecht testified at his
26 deposition that he told approximately fifteen officers at the lineup that Smith and Sanders
27 were “supposedly armed and dangerous” and possibly had a .38 caliber handgun and an
28 AK-47. (Brecht Dep., Ex. 10 to Iredale Decl., ECF No. 229-13 at 25:2-26:14). Officer
24
16-cv-2989-WQH-MSB
1 Douglas states in his declaration that Brecht told him that Smith was “considered extremely
2 dangerous.” (Douglas Decl., Ex. 15 to Sweda Decl., ECF No. 220-37 ¶ 3). Sergeant Holslag
3 was not present at the lineup.
4 Sergeant Brecht responded to Officer Escalante’s call about the foot pursuit of
5 Smith. Sergeant Brecht heard Officer Douglas state that Smith had “multiple warrants from
6 out of state” and was “possibly armed with a .38.” (Transcript of SDPD Dispatch Calls of
7 11-4-15, Ex. 4 to Sweda Decl., ECF No. 220-10 at 6; Audio Rec. of Police Radio, Disc Ex.
8 3 to Sweda Decl.). Sergeant Brecht heard the dispatcher state that Smith had “multiple
9 warrants from out of state” and was a possible “10:35”–armed and dangerous. (Transcript
10 of SDPD Dispatch Calls of 11-4-15, Ex. 4 to Sweda Decl., ECF No. 220-10 at 6-8; Audio
11 Rec. of Police Radio, Disc Ex. 3 to Sweda Decl.). Sergeant Brecht helped set up a perimeter
12 around the shed. Sergeant Brecht did not use any force during the incident.
13 “Proximate cause ‘limits the defendant’s liability to those foreseeable consequences
14 that the defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in producing.’” Ileto v. Glock, Inc.,
15 349 F.3d 1191, 1206 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Mendoza v. City of Los Angeles, 66 Cal. App.
16 4th 1333, 1342 (1998)). “The proximate cause question asks whether the unlawful conduct
17 is closely enough tied to the injury that it makes sense to hold the defendant legally
18 responsible for the injury.” Mendez v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 897 F.3d 1067, 1076 (9th Cir.
19 2018), reh’g denied, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 25361 (9th Cir. Sept. 6, 2018), cert. denied,
20 Cty. of Los Angeles v. Mendez, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 1652 (Mar. 4, 2019). “Whether an act is
21 the proximate cause of injury is generally a question of fact; it ‘is a question of law where
22 the facts are uncontroverted and only one deduction or inference may reasonably be drawn
23 from those facts.’” Ileto, 349 F.3d at 1206 (quoting Garman v. Magic Chef, Inc., 117 Cal.
24 App. 3d 634, 638 (1981)).
25 Courts in this circuit have denied motions for summary judgment on negligence
26 claims where a police officer creates a dangerous situation that results in another officer
27 using lethal force. See Dorger v. City of Napa, No. 12-cv-00440-WHO, 2013 U.S. Dist.
28 LEXIS 153696, at *33 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2013) (denying summary judgment on
25
16-cv-2989-WQH-MSB
1 negligence claim against officer who did not use force because “whether [the non-shooting
2 officer]’s preshooting conduct (e.g., her plan to detain [the victim], including the presence
3 of armed officers) played a role in negligently provoking a dangerous situation that resulted
4 in the use of reasonable or unreasonable use of lethal force, is relevant under the totality of
5 the circumstances test”); Howard v. Cty. of Riverside, EDCV 12-00700 VAP (OPx), 2014
6 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196517, at *27 (C.D. Cal. May 7, 2014) (denying summary judgment on
7 negligence claim against officer who did not use force, explaining that “[a] reasonable jury
8 could find that Sergeant Wedertz’s decisions to direct Deputy Munoz to enter the shed and
9 to open the closet door were a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s injuries”).
10 Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, Sergeant Brecht provided
11 safety information that he received from the bondsmen that Smith was possibly armed to
12 his squad of officers, which did not include Sergeant Holslag. Sergeant Brecht responded
13 to the call about the foot pursuit of Smith and helped set up a perimeter. Sergeant Brecht
14 did not directly communicate with Sergeant Holslag and did not use force during the
15 incident. The Court concludes that no reasonable juror could find that Sergeant Brecht’s
16 actions created a dangerous situation that resulted in Sergeant Holslag using deadly force.
17 The use of deadly force by Sergeant Holslag was not a foreseeable consequence of the
18 officer safety information provided by Sergeant Brecht. The Court concludes that no
19 reasonable juror could find that Sergeant Brecht’s actions were a proximate cause of the
20 shooting of Smith by Sergeant Holslag. Sergeant Brecht is entitled to summary judgment
21 on the wrongful death claim.
22 iii. The City
23 Defendant the City contends that it is entitled to summary judgment on the wrongful
24 death claim because Plaintiffs failed to identify a statute or enactment in the TAC
25 authorizing liability for wrongful death against the City. Plaintiffs contend that the City is
26 liable based on respondeat superior.
27 Tort liability against the City “is dependent on the existence of an authorizing statute
28 or ‘enactment.’” Searcy v. Hemet Unified Sch. Dist., 177 Cal. App. 3d 792, 802 (1986)
26
16-cv-2989-WQH-MSB
1 (citations omitted). Section 815(a) of the California Government Code provides that,
2 “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by statute . . . [a] public entity is not liable for an injury,
3 whether such injury arises out of an act or omission of the public entity or a public
4 employee or any other person.” Cal. Gov’t Code § 815(a); see Cowing v. City of Torrance,
5 60 Cal. App. 3d 757, 761 (1976) (“There is no common law governmental tort liability in
6 California; and except as otherwise provided by statute, there is no liability on the part of
7 a public entity for any act or omission of itself, a public employee, or any other person.”).
8 “Since the duty of a governmental agency can only be created by statute or ‘enactment,’
9 the statute or ‘enactment’ claimed to establish the duty must at the very least be identified”
10 in the complaint. Searcy, 177 Cal. App. 3d at 802.
11 Section 815.2 of the California Government Code “makes a public entity vicariously
12 liable for its employee’s negligent acts or omissions within the scope of employment.”
13 Eastburn v. Reg’l Fire Prot. Auth., 31 Cal. 4th 1175, 1180 (2003). “Since the enactment of
14 the California Tort Claims Act in 1963 (§ 810 et seq.), a governmental entity can be held
15 vicariously liable when a police officer acting in the course and scope of employment uses
16 excessive force or engages in assaultive conduct.” Mary M. v. City of Los Angeles, 54 Cal.
17 3d 202, 215 (1991).
18 In this case, the Court has determined that Sergeant Holslag is not entitled to
19 summary judgment on the wrongful death claim. At the time of the shooting, Sergeant
20 Holslag was acting in the course and scope of his employment as a police sergeant for the
21 City. A reasonable juror could conclude that the City is vicariously liable for Sergeant
22 Holslag’s actions. The Court construes the claim against the City for wrongful death to be
23 alleged under section 815.2 of the California Government Code. The Motion for Summary
24 Judgment on the wrongful death claim is granted as to the claim by Simmons and as to the
25 claim against Sergeant Brecht and is otherwise denied.
26 e. Joinder
27 Defendants Sergeant Holslag, Sergeant Brecht, and the City contend that Smith’s
28 surviving daughter must be joined under Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
27
16-cv-2989-WQH-MSB
1 to protect Defendants against the risk of incurring multiple obligations. Plaintiffs contend
2 that there is no evidence that Smith had a daughter.
3 Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires joinder of a person to a
4 pending action if “in that person’s absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among
5 existing parties; or . . . that person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action
6 and is so situated that disposing of the action in the person’s absence may . . . as a practical
7 matter impair or impede the person’s ability to protect the interest; or . . . leave an existing
8 party subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent
9 obligations because of the interest.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 19.
10 In this case, Simmons testified at her deposition that Smith was not sure if he had a
11 daughter. Simmons did not know any possible daughter’s full name. (See Simmons Dep.,
12 Ex. 26 to Sweda Decl., ECF No. 217-31 at 15:17-17:7). The Court concludes that there is
13 insufficient evidence that there is any other party required to be joined in this action.
14 The Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Sergeant Scott Holslag and City of San
15 Diego (ECF No. 217) is granted in part and denied in part. The Motion is granted as to the
16 first claim by individual heirs Wyatt Smith and Simmons for violation of the Fourth
17 Amendment, the fourth claim by individual heirs Wyatt Smith and Simmons for battery,
18 and the fifth claim by Simmons for wrongful death, and is otherwise denied. The Motion
19 for Summary Judgment filed by Sergeant David Brecht and City of San Diego (ECF No.
20 220) is granted.
21 VI. DEFENDANTS ESCAMILLA AND MACEY’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY
22 JUDGMENT
23 Defendants Escamilla and Macey move for summary judgment on the sixth claim
24 for conspiracy to violate civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the seventh claim for
25 violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Escamilla
26 and Macey further move for summary judgment on the request for punitive damages.
27 ///
28 ///
28
16-cv-2989-WQH-MSB
1 a. Claim 7 - 42 U.S.C. § 1983

2 All Plaintiffs bring a claim against Escamilla and Macey under § 1983 for violation
3 of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiffs assert that Escamilla and Macey acted
4 under color of state law by conducting a joint venture with SDPD. Plaintiffs assert that
5 Escamilla and Macey provided false information to police about Smith, increasing the
6 likelihood that excessive force would be used and constituting a substantial factor in
7 Smith’s death.
8 Escamilla and Macey contend that Plaintiffs fail to submit evidence that Escamilla
9 and Macey acted under color of state law. Escamilla and Macey contend that they were
10 engaged in purely private conduct. Escamilla and Macey contend that Plaintiffs fail to
11 submit evidence that any of the information Escamilla or Macey provided was false.
12 Plaintiffs contend that Macey provided false information to Escamilla, who then
13 extensively coordinated with police and provided false information about Sanders and
14 Smith to induce SDPD to arrest Sanders, resulting in Smith’s death.
15 An individual is not liable for the deprivation of rights under § 1983 unless they were
16 “acting under color of state law.” Leer, 844 F.2d at 632-33 (citations omitted). Plaintiffs
17 do not enjoy civil rights protections against “private conduct abridging individual rights.”
18 Burton v. Wilmington Parking Auth., 365 U.S. 715, 722 (1961). “[T]here is no rigid formula
19 for measuring state action for purposes of section 1983 liability. Rather, it is a process of
20 ‘sifting facts and weighing circumstances’ which must lead [the court] to a correct
21 determination.” Ouzts v. Maryland Nat’l Ins. Co., 505 F.2d 547, 550 (9th Cir. 1974) (en
22 banc) (quoting Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369, 378 (1967)).
23 A private individual’s action may be “under color of state law” where there is
“significant” state involvement in the action. Johnson v. Knowles, 113 F.3d
24
1114, 1118 (9th Cir.1997). The Supreme Court has articulated four tests for
25 determining whether a private individual’s actions amount to state action: (1)
the public function test; (2) the joint action test; (3) the state compulsion test;
26
and (4) the governmental nexus test. Id. . . . Under the joint action test, “courts
27 examine whether state officials and private parties have acted in concert in
effecting a particular deprivation of constitutional rights.” Gallagher v. Neil
28
29
16-cv-2989-WQH-MSB
1 Young Freedom Concert, 49 F.3d 1442, 1453 (10th Cir. 1995) . . . . The test
focuses on whether the state has “‘so far insinuated itself into a position of
2
interdependence with [the private actor] that it must be recognized as a joint
3 participant in the challenged activity.’” Gorenc v. Salt River Project Agric.
Improvement & Power Dist., 869 F.2d 503, 507 (9th Cir. 1989) . . . .
4
5 Franklin v. Fox, 312 F.3d 423, 444-45 (9th Cir. 2002); see Jackson v. Pantazes, 810 F.2d
6 426, 429 (4th Cir. 1987) (bail bondsman was a state actor where a police officer assisted
7 the bondsman in entering the suspect’s home and restrained the suspect while the
8 bondsman searched her home).
9 Providing false information to the police does not automatically transform a private
10 individual into a state actor. See Arnold v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 1357-
11 58 (9th Cir. 1981) (a person who supplies inaccurate information that leads to arrest is not
12 involved in joint activity with that state and is thus not liable under § 1983 (citing Butler v.
13 Goldblatt Bros., Inc., 589 F.2d 323, 327 (7th Cir. 1978)); Daniel v. Ferguson, 839 F.2d
14 1124, 1130 (5th Cir. 1988) (“Police reliance in making an arrest on information given by a
15 private party does not make the private party a state actor.”).
16 In this case, Macey attempted to locate Sanders after a warrant was issued for
17 Sanders’ arrest in Missouri. Macey testified at her deposition that another bondsman,
18 Leland Chapman, created the first “Wanted” poster, and Macey posted it to her Facebook
19 account. The poster stated that Sanders was wanted for “bail jumping” and was “WITH
20 TIMOTHY GENE SMITH CONSIDERED ARMED AND EXTREMELY
21 DANGEROUS.” (First Wanted Poster, Ex. 14 to Iredale Decl., ECF No. 235-8 at 3).
22 Macey testified that the assertion that Smith and Sanders were “armed” came from
23 talking to Smith and Sanders’ former roommate, Tiffany Moore, who told Macey and
24 Chapman that Smith and Sanders “had guns.” (Macey Dep., Ex. B to Obra-White Decl.,
25 ECF No. 219-6 at 65:2-3). Tiffany Moore stated in her police interview that she told the
26 bondsmen that Sanders and Smith had a gun. Macey testified that the “dangerous” assertion
27 was added to the “Wanted” poster because Smith tried to run Macey over with his car when
28 Macey located Smith and Sanders in Kansas City. (Id. at 65:2-20; 93:7-94:21). Macey
30
16-cv-2989-WQH-MSB
1 testified that “Leland was the one that found out about the AK-47.” (Id. at 84:21-23).
2 Macey learned that Sanders and Smith might be in San Diego and hired Escamilla to
3 apprehend Sanders. Macey did not have any contact with SDPD before the shooting.
4 Escamilla created the second “Wanted” poster. The poster stated that Sanders and
5 Smith were “WANTED ON EXTRADITABLE FELONIES OUT OF MISSOURI.”
6 (Second Wanted Poster, Ex. 17 to Iredale Decl., ECF No. 234-10 at 2). The poster stated,
7 “SUBJECTS KNOWN TO BE HOMELESS AND ON FOOT IN THE PACIFIC BEACH
8 AREA AS OF 11/4/15. CAUTION: CI HAS ADVISED THAT SUBJECT SMITH
9 RECENTLY LEFT MISSOURI BY TRAIN ARMED WITH AN AK-47 and/or Revolver
10 and is a convicted felon with a long criminal history of violent crimes.” (Id.). Escamilla
11 states in his Declaration that he obtained the information for the second “Wanted” poster
12 from Macey, Chapman, and the first “Wanted” poster.
13 On November 3, 2015, Escamilla called SDPD requesting assistance in
14 apprehending Smith and Sanders at Fanuel Park. Escamilla gave Sergeant Brecht either the
15 second “Wanted” poster or the picture of Smith and Sanders from the poster. Escamilla
16 states in his Declaration that his only communication with any SDPD member before the
17 shooting was the “November 3, 2015 notification to S.D.P.D. dispatch of the intended
18 activities on November 3, 2015, as is required by law (Penal Code § 1299.08) and, later
19 that day, providing the photo, given to me by Natalie Macey and contained in the [‘Wanted’
20 posters] to Sgt. David Brecht.” (Escamilla Decl., ECF No. 215-1 ¶ 7).
21 The asserted constitutional violation in this case is the use of lethal force by Sergeant
22 Holslag in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Sergeant Holslag testified that he shot
23 Smith because he believed that Smith was armed with a gun and was going to shoot him.
24 Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, Macey assisted in the creation
25 of a “Wanted” poster that stated that Smith was armed and dangerous. Escamilla used
26 information provided by Macey and by the first “Wanted” poster to create the second
27 “Wanted” poster, which he then provided to Brecht. Escamilla also provided this
28 information to Soto, who told the police dispatcher that Smith was armed, dangerous, and
31
16-cv-2989-WQH-MSB
1 had a long history of violent crime. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to
2 Plaintiffs, Holslag heard on the police radio that Smith was possibly armed and dangerous
3 and believed that Smith had a gun when he shot Smith.
4 The Court concludes that Macey providing information to Escamilla, and Escamilla
5 providing information to SDPD about Smith, even if false, did not constitute joint
6 participation with SDPD in the use of lethal force. Plaintiffs have failed to present evidence
7 sufficient for a reasonable juror to conclude that Macey or Escamilla acted in concert with
8 SDPD in the deprivation of Smith’s Fourth Amendment rights. See Franklin, 312 F.3d at
9 445 (quoting Gorenc, 869 F.2d at 507). The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to
10 present facts sufficient to show that either Macey or Escamilla was a state actor rather than
11 engaged in “private conduct.” Burton, 365 U.S. at 722; see Ouzts, 505 F.2d at 555 (“[W]e
12 [ ] know that the bail bondsman is in the business in order to make money and is not acting
13 out of a high-minded sense of devotion to the administration of justice . . . . [T]he bondsman
14 was acting ‘to protect his own private financial interest and not to vindicate the interest of
15 the state.’” (quoting People v. Houle, 13 Cal. App. 3d 892, 895 (1970)). The Motions for
16 Summary Judgment on the claims against Macey and Escamilla for violation of § 1983 are
17 granted.
18 b. Claim 6 - Conspiracy
19 All Plaintiffs bring a claim against Macey and Escamilla for conspiracy to violate
20 civil rights under § 1983. Plaintiffs assert that Macey, Escamilla, Legal Service Bureau,
21 and Soto conspired to deprive Smith of his constitutionally protected rights under the
22 Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments by providing false information about Smith to SDPD
23 with the expectation that SDPD would use excessive force. Plaintiffs assert that the
24 bondsmen agreed with each other to obtain SDPD’s participation in Sanders’ arrest by
25 falsely telling SDPD that Smith was a violent, armed criminal.
26 Macey and Escamilla contend that they did not conspire with SDPD to deprive Smith
27 of his constitutional rights. Macey contends that she hired Escamilla to apprehend Sanders.
28 Macey and Escamilla assert that the information provided was not false. Plaintiffs contend
32
16-cv-2989-WQH-MSB
1 that a reasonable juror could conclude that Macey and Escamilla conspired with each other
2 and Soto to falsify information, resulting in the use of excessive force by Sergeant Holslag.
3 “To establish a conspiracy under § 1983, a plaintiff must satisfy the following
4 elements: (1) the existence of an express or implied agreement among the defendant
5 officers to deprive him of his constitutional rights; and (2) an actual deprivation of those
6 rights resulting from that agreement.” Avalos v. Baca, 596 F.3d 583, 592 (9th Cir. 2010).
7 Conspiracy is not itself a constitutional tort under § 1983. See Cassettari v.
Nev. Cnty., 824 F.2d 735, 739 (9th Cir. 1987) (“The insufficiency of these
8
allegations to support a section 1983 violation precludes a conspiracy claim
9 predicated upon the same allegations.”); Landrigan v. City of Warwick, 628
F.2d 736, 742 (1st Cir. 1980) (“[M]ere proof of a conspiracy is insufficient to
10
establish a section 1983 claim.”) (quoting Hampton v. Hanrahan, 600 F.2d
11 600, 622 (7th Cir. 1979), rev’d in part on other grounds, 446 U.S. 754, 100
S. Ct. 1987, 64 L. Ed. 2d 670 (1980)). It does not enlarge the nature of the
12
claims asserted by the plaintiff, as there must always be an underlying
13 constitutional violation. Conspiracy may, however, enlarge the pool of
responsible defendants by demonstrating their causal connections to the
14
violation; the fact of the conspiracy may make a party liable for the
15 unconstitutional actions of the party with whom he has conspired. Conspiracy
in § 1983 actions is usually alleged by plaintiffs to draw in private parties who
16
would otherwise not be susceptible to a § 1983 action because of the state
17 action doctrine, see Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 152, 90 S. Ct.
1598, 26 L. Ed. 2d 142 (1970); Crowe v. Cnty. of San Diego, 608 F.3d 406,
18
440 (9th Cir. 2010); Franklin v. Fox, 312 F.3d 423, 441 (9th Cir. 2002), or to
19 aid in proving claims against otherwise tenuously connected parties in a
complex case, see Gilbrook [v. City of Westminster], 177 F.3d [839,] 856-58
20
[(9th Cir. 1999)].
21
Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 934-935 (9th Cir. 2012), superseded by statute on
22
other grounds.
23
In this case, the conspiracy claim is based on the same facts as the claim against the
24
bondsmen for violation of § 1983. The underlying constitutional violation in this case is
25
the use of excessive force by Sergeant Holslag against Smith. Viewing the facts in the light
26
most favorable to Plaintiffs, the bondsmen provided information to each other and to SDPD
27
that Smith was armed with one or more guns and had a history of violent crime, in order to
28
33
16-cv-2989-WQH-MSB
1 induce SDPD’s assistance in arresting Sanders. There is insufficient evidence of a causal

2 connection between Macey and Escamilla’s actions and the assertedly unconstitutional
3 actions of Sergeant Holslag. Plaintiffs have not come forward with evidence sufficient for
4 a reasonable juror to conclude that Escamilla and Macey conspired with SDPD to deprive
5 Smith of his right to be free from excessive force. The Motions for Summary Judgment
6 filed by Defendants Dan Escamilla (ECF No. 215) and Natalie Ann Macey (ECF No. 219)
7 are granted.
8 VII. CONCLUSION
9 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by
10 Defendant Dan Escamilla (ECF No. 215) is granted.
11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by
12 Defendants Sergeant Scott Holslag and City of San Diego (ECF No. 217) is granted in part
13 and denied in part. The Motion is granted as to the first claim by individual heirs Wyatt
14 Smith and Simmons for violation of the Fourth Amendment, the fourth claim by individual
15 heirs Wyatt Smith and Simmons for battery, and the fifth claim by Simmons for wrongful
16 death, and is otherwise denied.
18 Defendant Natalie Ann Macey (ECF No. 219) is granted.
20 Defendants Sergeant David Brecht and City of San Diego (ECF No. 220) is granted.
21 Dated: December 31, 2020
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
34
16-cv-2989-WQH-MSB

Escamilla V Iredale Complaint For Damages and Exhibits 1 Through 7

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Escamilla V Iredale Complaint For Damages and Exhibits 1 Through 7

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

Escamilla V Iredale Complaint For Damages and Exhibits 1 Through 7

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the underlying lawsuit about?

What is the underlying lawsuit about?

What did the plaintiff do after being named in the initial lawsuit?

What did the plaintiff do after being named in the initial lawsuit?

Daniel Escamilla

1 1679 E. Orangethorpe Ave #117

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 DONALD A. GREEN (SBN 225171)

8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ESTATE OF TIMOTHY GENE SMITH et al.

1 Plaintiffs, ESTATE OF TIMOTHY GENE SMITH, by its successor in

1 8. Plaintiffs have exhausted all administrative remedies before filing this

5 9. The individual plaintiffs are natural persons, citizens, domiciliaries

6 and permanent residents of the State of Missouri.

8 herein the legal spouse of plaintiff’s decedent TIMOTHY GENE SMITH.

9 11. Plaintiff WYATT ALLEN GUNNER SMTIH is the biological son of

11 12. Plaintiff SANDY LYNN SIMMONS is the biological mother of

12 plaintiff’s decedent TIMOTHY GENE SMITH.

16 representative capacities as successor in interest of the Estate of Timothy Gene

18 14. Defendant City of San Diego is a municipality within the State of

19 California and is the employer of Defendants SHELLEY ZIMMERMAN, SCOTT

23 15. At all times relevant hereto, defendants ZIMMERMAN, HOLSLAG,

28 16. Upon information and belief, defendant NATALIE ANN MACEY,

28 HOLSLAG, NATALIE ANN MACEY, d/b/a MACEY BAIL BONDS, LEGAL

1 ESCAMILLA, LELAND CHAPMAN BAIL BOND CO. INC., LBC, INC., DA

1 34. Plaintiff further alleges that defendant MACEY had no relationship,

1 guaranteed by the United States Constitution, particularly the Fourth Amendment.

1 64. As a proximate result of the unlawful policies, customs and habits

1 71. Despite their knowledge of previous instances of wrongful deaths,

1 81. Defendants City of San Diego, Does, and Zimmerman have a

1 exercise reasonable care in the training, supervision, discipline and retention of

1 herein, including conspiracy to deprive Timothy Gene Smith of his Fourteenth

1 123. As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of the Defendants’

1 AK-47. See Exhibit A. The information on the “WANTED” posters was

1 3. For attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 USC §§ 1983 and 1988, and

Dan Escamilla <lsblaptop@gmail.com>

Smith v. City of San Deigo

Dan Escamilla, JD <dan@globalfugitiverecovery.com> Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 12:46 PM

Please see attached letter.

888 W. Santa Ana Blvd., Suite 100

Santa Ana, CA 92701

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION DISCLOSURE

SMITH LAWSUIT RESPONSE LETTER.pdf

December 22, 2016

VIA US MAIL AND E-MAIL TO donald@dgreenlaw.com

VIA US MAIL AND E-MAIL TO jyoo@iredalelaw.com

Dear Messrs. Green and Iredale,

I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’

California’s anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 435.16(b)(1), provides

Plaintiff’s complaint as to this defendant is premised on this defendant’s dissemination of

III. THE LAWSUIT IS IN POTENTIAL VIOLATION OF THE ATTORNEYS’

“A member shall not seek, accept, or continue employment if the member

An action is deemed to have been pursued without probable cause if it was

'The resolution of that question of law calls for the application of an