[CHARLES A. BONNER, ESQ. SB# 85413 Is. CABRAL BONNER, SQ. 8B# 247528 LAW OFFICES OF BONNER & BONNE! 475 Gate 5 Road, Suite 212 JSAUSALITO, CA 94965 FTP: (413) 331-3070 FAX: (415) 331-2738, [ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF JELAINE BROWN CITY OF OAKLAND, ELAINE BROWN, Case No PLAINTIFF, AMENDED CLAIM FOR DAMAGES ICITY OF OAKLAND, DESLEY [BROOKS, ESQ. and BOES 1-50 inclusive, ELDER ABUSE, ASSAUL BATTERY FALSE IMPRISONMENT INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS NEGLIGENCE, Defendants OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, ONE FRANK OGAWA PLAZA, 6TH FLOOR, OAKLAND, CA 94612 FROM: LAW OFFICES OF BONNER & BONNER. ALL COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING THIS CLAIM SHALL BE ADDRESSED TO THE LAW OFFICES OF BONNER AND BONNER ABOVE REFERENCED. CLAIM: AGAINST THE CITY OF OAKLAND: $1,000,000. "AGAINST DESLEY BROOKS, ESQ,: $3,000,000 GENERAL DAMAGES AGAINST DESLEY BROOKS, ESQ. $3,000,000 PUNITIVE DAMAGES PLAINTIFF ELAINE BROWN alleges as follows: INTRODUCTION 1, PLAINTIFF ELAINE BROWN brings this CLAIM to vindicate her constitutional, staxtory and common aw rights, 2, PLAINTIFF ELAINE BROWN (hetcinafler “MS. BROWN") alleges thot 1 art NDED CLATAT FOR DAMAGES[DEFENDANT DESLEY BROOKS isa City Couneil member onthe Oakland! [6.aposition she has held sinee 2002. tn January 2011, DEFENDANT DESLEY BROOKS wasslso inaugurated as the Vice Mayor of Oskland, Califor 3. OnOetober30,2015, DEFENDANT'BROOKS assaulted, struck, pushed and hit MS, BROWN, without provocation, excuse or justification, while discussing City of Oakland business arding affordable housing. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This CLAIM is made pursuant to California Government Cade Section 900, et sea, land all additional applicable codes pertaining to filing claims against public entities 5. DEFENDANTSare each andall subjecttosuit in that DEFENDANT CITY isa public ratty who regularly employs 15 or more persons. 6. DEFENDANT CITY condvets its business and is a government agency operating Lunder color of state authority in this judicial distr. PARTIES. 7. PLAINTIFF BLAINE BROWN is at all times relevant herein a citizen ofthe United [States anda resident of Onkland, California 8. DEFENDANT DESLEY BROOKS is City Council member on the Oakland [Counci, 9, DEFENDANT CITY OF OAKLAND is a municipal corporation, organized under tic 6, a positon she has held sinee 2002, {he laws of the State of California, doing business in California as a government subdivision under olor of Sate authority and subject to the laws ofthis State and the United States. 10. At all times herein relevant, DEFENDANT DESLEY BROOKS was a city Iminiatator agent, representative, and manager of DEFENDANT CITY, and wae acting withing. tne course and scope of her employment and agency. RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR. 1, All of the deseribed conduct, acts, and failures to act are attributed to agents, representatives, and employees under the dreetion and control, and withthe permission, consent and jeutorization of DEFENDANTS, Said acts, conduct and failures to act were withinthe scope of suchjagency and employment. Atall times relevant herein, each participant was act land scope of his or her employment, EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 12, Inorder to exhaust her administrative remedies, MS, BROWN files this AMENDED IM against the CITY OF OAKLAND for damages, injures and harms, STATEMENT.OF FACTS, 13, On October 30, 2015, around 6:30 in the evening, Oakland City Council Member [Pesley Brooks, (6th Distt), unleashed a tsunami of criminal, assaulive, violent conduct on MS, BROWN, during a celebration of MS. BROWN timely submitting he application for funding under the City’s Affordable Housing Notice of Funding Availabilty (*NOPA), 14. MS. BROWN is the CEO of Oakland & the World Enterprises (“OAW"), a non-profit organization, OAW"S mission isto launch and sustain for-profitbusinesses forownership formerly incarcerated and other economically marginalized people. OAW is developing a {three-quarter-acre property at 7thand Campbell Sueetsin West Oakland (transferred to OAW by the ity Council vote in October 2014). [city of Oakland under @ Resolution that received a unanimous, [This property is presently almost fully developed as an urban farm, OWA’s frst business, but is slated for development of a complex of five businesses und 60 units of housing, all affordable. 15. On October 30, 2015, around 3:40 pum, MS. BROWN and her assistants, Ali Kashani, OAW's interim co-leveloper, Aracely (“Shelli”) Garza notably a former member of Desley Brooks’ sta) and Turner Group Construction staf, were frantically working o complete the complex. {OFA application, The work on the application binder was taking place atthe offices of Turner roup Construction, with Len Tumer, its CFO, providing space and sta for this purpose. 16, MS. DROWN handed off the finished application, binder as big as tw thick, phone books, to Mr, Len Turner wi rushed out the door to file the application for funding under the City’s [Attordable Housing Notice of Funding Availability (*NOFA") (for $2.1 Million ofthe $7 Million available). This funding source was not going to be available aan fortwo years, andl MS. BROWN. and her assistants were very anxious about a timely fling. 17, Me.Tumer personally drove the NOFA application binder from East Oakland tothe1 Jottices of the City’s Housing Department in downtown Oakland, submitting it exactly a 4:00 pm. i: “I made it!” MS, BROWN and Shelli were jumping for joy, hugging each fther. They called Ali (who had left the Turner offices), and all enjoyed the happiness of having done tc tha they hud met the 4:00 pm deadline —I a great job. MS. BROWN was ee: tray atthe very 18. During the phone call, MS. BROWN told Me. Turner that she would shortly jin him 3 Everett & Jones ("ERI") restaurant at 2nd and Broadway, Oakland, Me, Ture often wound up his week al that resaurent on Fridays, and she knew that he was gong thereto celebrate the |-Vieiory". MS. BROWN invited Shel to join them, After making a copy ofthe NOFA document they ha submited an ishing oer paperwork, MS, BROWN let Tumor Group Construction for es 19, When she amived at B&J around 5:00pm, she found Me. Tuner nthe ist ba area hich opens out onto Broadway. Me, Tunce was siting at a high, round table with Ms, Dorothy King, B&1's owner, and Oakland City Council Member, DEFENDANT DESLEY BROOKS, both 15 of whom MS. BROWN is acqui 16 }s. BROWN was facing Mr. Tuner, With DEFENDANT BROOKS on her left, and Ms. King on ted with, Ms, King has a fourth chair brought tothe small table. 17 fher ight. MS. BROWN greeted everyone at the table and proceeded to order some food 18], 20, Mr Turner reieved the copy ofthe front page of their Application with the time 19 |stamp'4:00 pm, and lid itacrossthe table to MS. BROWN, 20 [1s A VICTORVH!!" MS, BROWN and Me, Turner excitedly exclaimed in cheer. card player playing an Ace, “IT a 21, Instantly, DEFENDANT BROOKS launched into venomousy aggresive monologue 22 fand ade tating that she, as «council member, “should have had that NOFA withdran. Its of 23 Jo bonott to black people!” sho aacrtod. MS. BROWN sstortd that she wes wrong, and that he 24 [ould not be serious about moving to withdraw it. DEFENDANT BROOKS emphatically advised 25 JMS. BROWN that MS, BROWN did not understand that black people needed not apartments torent 26 fouthomes to buy. 27] 22, Imanefort to ealm the unexplained and unforeseeable escalating anger and tension, 28 | MS. BROWN asserted thee was no conflict between the two needs and interests of back people, 4 tsb CHAI FOR DAKINEindicating that this project was affordable and slated for cooperative ownership; poor black people lid not have the means to buy houses under the current capitalist scheme. She added hat there was the urgent need of creating affordable homes for black and al other poor people to live, in light of jmass gentviftetion, particularly in West Oakland. 23, DEFENDANT BROOKS persisted that the problem with the affordable housing, INOPA was that, “That money should he allocated forblack home ownership.” She add that on (he following) Monday, she was gong to “ook into gesting that NOFA withdrawn!” 24. MS. BROWN quietly finished her food ane! discontinued any further conversation ith DEFENDANT BROOKS. MS. BROWN stood up, walked tothe cash register atthe bar, paid a, parked {irectly in font £4, Shelli Garza, whose car was double-parked a few feet away, walked up to he erbilland Ie, after saying goodbye to the three athe table. As she was getting into hes IMS. BROWN asked if Shelli was going to join Len, and noted that Len was siting with DEFENDANT BROOKS, also making bee avare that there had been some acrimony between [BROOKS and MS. BROWN. Shelli fl that t would be alright, and since MS. BROWN had invited Shelli to join Mr. Turner and her fo celebrate their vitory, MS. BROWN decided to go back into the restaurant with her. Shell parked her ear, and she and MS. BROWN went in together. Atthis point, [DEFENDANT BROOKS was sitting by herself at the same table. 25. Ms. King had opened up the large second bar area in the rear ofthe resturant, MS. [BROWN suggested to Shell that they go tothe rear bar where Len most likely had gone. They }valked past DEFENDANT BROOKS on their way toward the second bar area. MS. BROWN smumbled ina stage whisper to Shell that was glad she did not have to “deal with any more BS". 26, _Assoonas they had passed, DEFENDANT BROOKS rose from her set and walks nclly behind MS, DROWN in stalking manner. Shelli was now following, While walking trough the small coridor leading into the large rear bar rea, DEFENDANT BROOKS, ina hostile, rontational manner, demanded from MS. BROWN, “Say it again!” “Say it again!” MS. JROWN respnned that she had nothing to say that DEFENDANT BROOKS, adding: “You have no basis to question my commitment to serving the black community, questioning me about what flack people need, particularly as you have been a federal prosecutor responsible forthe incarcerationmmigrants; and you co-sponsored a 2011 oxdinance that erated 1 Jorpeopie of color ing be a virtual police-state in Oakland to put down the Occupy Movement; and now you are supporting the transport of «toxic substance—coal—through the black community of West Oakland.” 27. By his time, DEFENDANT BROOKS was following on almost on the heels of MS, [BROWN as they were entering the cavernous second bar area. Apprehensive of an attack, MS. 2 3 4 s 6 |AROWN turned to Fae her a he enrance to the Second bar area 7] 28 DEPENDANT BROOKS confeonted MS. BROWN, moving in close, invading MS. 8 |BROWN’s personal space and yelling: “You are all talk," and “I have not moved on you before 9 Joecause you're of. But now Lam tired of your Bullshit!” Atthispoint Ms. King wascomplaining 10 |+You at need to stop! This lou confrontation is upsetting my customers." " 29, DEFENDANT BROOKS yelled: “I knew you wore all talk!” Suddenly, without 12 [waning or any indication, DEFENDANT BROOKS raised her ams, both fists balled, and with a 13 force hit while pushing, struck MS. BROWN in the chest with (o fists, knocking down MS. 14 [BROWN who was stn 15 [BROWN landed hard, biting the back of her head on a chit. She was not only shocked, aad, and 16 {humitiated, but also stuck. Unable to gain he footing and balance as her feet were above er head ling. backwards head-over-heels over a stack of folding chairs, MS. 17 Ife hands were unable to get a grip on anything. DEFENDANT BROOKS’ eyes were fixed on MS. 18 JBROWN ina fighting stare; her face was contorted and twisted in ugly anger as she was surrounded iting towering over and looking down on MS. 19 fy peopl yelling atherto “Stop!” She is poised and w 20 | BROWN, her fists at the ready to deliver another blow. MS. BROWN was afi to move and did 21 [ot move because of fear that DEFENDANT BROOKS would strike her again. Mt. Tune finally 22 feached down and pulled MS. BROWN up fiom the pile of ehuts. Maurice Stevenson, “Mo”, 23 [protstively escorted MS. BROWN outside and away fiom DEFENDANT BROOKS 24] 30, Outside the restaurant, MS. BROWN was tying to gather and compose herself and 25 recover tom the rage and feat caused by DEFENDANT BROOKS’ attack, assault and battery. Aer ately 20 minutes, Mo returned outside with Mr. Turnerand Shel, begging MS, BROWN to talk and have drink with them, She did so inorder to calm down, but soon went31. Onthe following day, MS. BROWN went othe Kaiser Oakland ER because she was fruised on both legs and herleft arm. The back of her head hada painful big lump oni and her ight shoulder was extremely sore and painful. X-Rays of her shoulder prefiminarily revealed no broken bones, but she was given w sling to wear, 32, Nearly (wo weeks later, on November 16, 2015, MS. BROWN filed a criminal be City af [complaint report withthe OPI). Town days later, MS. BROWN flee Complain wi JOakland. Since the pain in her right shoulder was worsening instead of abating, she made an appointment witha Kaiser omtopedist for 1/23/15, and was tested with an injection of Cotisone. 33. The pai persisted, so.on 11/27/18 she went to the ER again and was prescribed two in medications. ‘The medications again di not relieve the pain, which was unrelenting. MS. [BROWN made an urgent appointment withthe orthopedist on 122/15 and was given a seeond shot 1 Contisone in another area of her right shoulder. The eurrent sats of he injsis is that they are severe, permanent and debilitating, and the she is suffering and will suffer Post Concessive Syndrome, including & luster of physical andl cognitive symptoms that te known to occur after a tinor hed injury such as she sustained, These include Dizziness, Poor Memory and Concentration, Headache, Fatigue, Sleep Disturbance, Light sensitivity, Tinnitus (cinginginthe ers), Nek Painand itil. DEFENDANT CITY RATIFICATION, ADOPTION AND AUTHORIZATION 34. DEFENDANT CITY OF OAKLAND knew, or should have known, that [DEFENDANT BROOKS has a propensity and proclivity for assaulting behavior toward people with jwhom she has politcal disagreements, She has struck, hit, pushed, assaulted and battered people fore this latest vieious, violent attack, assault and battery on MS. BROWN, Atall times during her Iemembe, the DEFENDANT CITY has witnessed her rage and assaltive | creseutationas a Coun bchavior and has filed to tke remedial action to protet citizens by effectively disciplining [DEFENDANT BROOKS 35, —_Atallrelevanttimes, the DEFENDANT CITY has known that Oakland City Coun jmember DESLEY BROOKS “..i¢ « runaway tain that needs to be derailed before she does eveparable ham”. Anyone was in dangerof ninningafoulof DEFENDANT BROOKS, whose publicdemeanor can be described in two ways: angry and angrier. Councilwoman Lynette Gibson McEthaney isa potte, cultured person, yet during a recent counel meeting, Brooks called her ankyhend.” DEFENDANT BROOKS is a monster created by the city's lack of administrative onto, por ethical standards, and absucd, race-based politcal environment that lets her survive. ‘Given her istry andthe city’s unwilingness o inability to hold he accountable, i wil tke more ion —to slow that train down.” than a micdemennior nail charge oe a conv 36, It is well established that when an employer ratifies the tortious conduct of an ployee, he or she becomes "lable for the employee's wrongful conduct as a joint participant." [Freland v. County of Humbotdt (1999) 69 Cal. App. 4th 1478, 1489-1490. An employer who fails {o discipline an employee after being informed ofthat employee's improper conduct can be deemed {to have ratified that conduct. Hart v, National Mortgage & Land Co, (1987) 189 Cal. App. 3d 1420, 1430; Iverson v. Atlas Pacific Engineering (1983) 143 Cal. App. 3d 219,228, According tothe court jin Iverson, if an employer is informed that an employee has committed un intentional tort and lpevertheless declines to "censure crtieize, suspend or discharge" thatemployee,aclaim eanbe made for rtitication. a 37, "Ratification isthe voluntary election by a person to adopt in some manner as hisown an act which was purportedly done on his bebelfby another person, the effeet of which, as to some Jor all persons, is to treat the act as originally authorized by him. A purported agents act may be may be adopted by implication based on conduct ofthe purported principal opted expressly fiom whichan intention to consent tooradopt the act may be fut infered inching conduct which is"inconsistent with any reasonable intention om bis part, eer than that he intended approving and opting it! Fretfand, supra 69 Cal. App th 1491 38, _Atallselevot tinea alleged herein, DEFENDANT CITY OF OAKLAND had actual id consteutive knowledge of DEFENDANT BROOKS violent, assaulive and abusive beivior. ity of Onkland has endorsed, ratified and encouraged DEFENDANT BROOKS “out of control” "Chip Johnson November 23, 2015, uips/worwslebronicle-convbayarea/johnson/stticle/Oakland-Councilwoman-Desley-Brooks-is-0 t-0F.6652964 php s RENEE CERIN FOR DANIAGES1 J violent behavior. DEFENDANT CITY OF OAKLAND fale to take any comtective action to protect jhe public from DEFENDANT BROOKS, 39, Atallrelevanttimeshereinalleged, DEFENDANT BROOKS wasconductingbusiness oe the City of Oakland, and engaged in the discussion and the implementation of City of Oakland's 5 |potices, managing procedures, and acting in the course and scope as representative of the City of 6 [oakland 7 ilder Abuse 8 Gov. Code § 815.2 (Against All Defendants) 9 0 40. MS. BROWN incorporates by reference herein the preceding. paragraphs of the [complaint as though set forth here in ful, 41, DBRENDANT BROOKS isa licensed, seasoned attomey, and a former prosecutor vith the U.S. Department of Justice Immigration & Naturalization, At all relevant times herein, DEFENDANT BROOKS was aware and knowledgeable of California Law, Welfare and Institutions ‘ode Section 15600), providing: “ The Legislature recognizes that elders and dependentadaltsmay loc subjected to abuse, neglect, or abandonment and that this state has a responsibility to protect these persons. 42, Atallrelevanttimes herein, DEFENDANT BROOKS was aware and knowledgeable oF Catifomia Law stating: “a) The Legislature recognizes that elders and dependent adults may be © Physical abuse, neglect, financial abuse, abandonment, soation, abduction, or oer treatment with jected to abuse...” "Abuse of an elder or a dependent adult” means either ofthe followi sulting physical haem or pain or mental sulfering.” (Welf. & Inst, Code, § 1610.07), "Elder" .cansany'petaon residing inthis alate, 65 years of age or older. (Wolf. & Inet. Code, §15610.27) 43. Atallzelevant times herein, DEFENDANT BROOKS was aware and knowledgeable lof California Law defining: "Physical abuse” means any of te following: (a) "Physical abuso" Jrncans any ofthe following: (a) Assault, as defined in Section 240 of the Penal Code: “An assault isan unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another.” “(b) Batery, as defined in Section 242 of the Penal Code: “A battery is any willful andjunlaiful use of force of violence upon the person of another. (Welt: & Inst, Coe, § 15610.63) 44, Atallretevant times herein, DEFENDANT BROOKS was aware and knowledgeable 1 California Law declaring: “The purpose of the [Elder Abuse Act} is essentially to protect @ [particulary vulnerable portion of the population from gross mistreatment inthe form of abuse..." | Detaney v. Baker (1999) 20 Cal th 23, 33) 45, Atall relevant times herein, DEFENDANT BROOKS was aware and knowledgeable £ California Law defining injury to elders as: Serious bodily injury” means an injury involving xtreme physical pain, substantial risk of death, or protracted loss or impairment of fimetion of a Wal foculty, oF requiring medical intervention, including, but not Himited to, hospitalization, surgery, or physical rehabilitation”. (Welf. & Inst, Code, §15610.67) 46, _Atallelevant times herein, DEFENDANT BROOKS engaged in negligent, reckless Jn intentional violent criminal conduct, inflicting physical abuse on MS, BROWN, knocking her ily member, organ, oF of nto the ground, and standing over her positioned to strike MS, BROWN again, She knew or uld have known that MS. BROWN was in ear of moving rom her disadvantage position onthe und, and did not move because of fear of anater suk nd blow as DEFENDANTBROOKS was tanding over her positioned an ready to stke her again 47. Atal relevant times herein, DEFENDANT BROOKS, age $4, was aware and {knowledgeable that MS. BROWN was in excess of 65 years of ag, stating: “I have not moved on 1 before because you're old. Bul now Lam ire of your Bullshit. Pllowing this angry Grae, DEFENDANT BROOKS intentionally, and with premeditated and conscious diseegard of MS. [BROWN'S age, safety, health and constitutional rights, acted with recklessness, malice, and pression as she bit, pushed, struck, assaulted and batered MS, BROWN in the chest, causing MS. [BROWN to fll and austin head 48, —_Atallrclevant imes herein, DEFENDANT BROOKS was aware ad knowledgeable Califor sabe for physical abuse as defined in Section 15610.63..as defined in Section 15610.57, and that fraud, oF malice inthe commission ofthis brass, an other damages. Law providing: “Where i is proven by clear and convincing evidence that a defendant the defendant has been guilty of recklessness, oppres 1 toall other remedies otherwise provided by law: (a) The abuse the following shall apply, in adit{cout shall award tothe plaintiff reasonable attomey's fees and costs.” ( Wel & Inst. Code § 15657) 49, AstoDEFENDANT BROOKS only the nets of this Defendantasalleged herein, were intentional, outrageous, despicable, oppressive, fraudulent, and done with il will and fntent to injure IMs, BROWN and to cause, and did cause MS, BROWN serious bodily injury, pain, mental anguish, ansiety, loss of enjoyment of life, severe mental and emotional distress, humiliation, inconvenience end misery. 50, DEFENDANT BROOKS" sets were done in conscious disregard of MS. BROWN'S. health, safety, constitutional rights, and of he tsk of severe emotional harm to MS. BROOKS and }vith the intent to injure, constituting oppression, fraud, and malice under California Civil Code 33294, entitling MS. BROWN to punitive damages and attomeys fees against DEFENDANT [BROOKS only ‘Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for judgment as more fully set forth below. "ASSAULT Gov. Code § 815.2 (Against All Defendants) SI. MS. BROWN incorporates by reference herein the preceding paragraphs of the mmplant as though set forth here in ful 52, DEFENDANT BROOKS’ intentional acts of pressing in, moving closer to MS JBROWN’S body, and invading MS, BROWN's personal space, and yelling, “You are all talk, "and I have not moved on you before because you're old. But now Tam tired of your Bullshit!” and placing MS. BROWN in apprehension of a battery was an illegsl, non-consensual conduct, amounting to assault 53. _AsloDEFENDANTBROOKG only, heats ofthis Dofondantasalloged hors, wore ‘intentional, outrageous, despicable, oppressive, faudlent, and done with il will and intent o injure IMS. BROWN andto cause, and did cause MS. BROWN seious bd injury, pain, mental anguish, riety, loss of enjoyment of it, severe mental and emotional distress, humiliation, inconvenience 1nd misery. 54, DEFENDANT BROOKS’ acts were done in conscious disregard of MS. BROWN'S uheatth, safety, constitutional rights, and of the tsk of severe emotional harm to MS. BROOKS and Pith the intent fo injure, consti BROWN to punitive damages and attorneys fees against DEFENDANT ting oppression, fraud, and malice under California Civil Code ‘Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for judgment as mote fully st forth below. BATTERY. Gov. Code § 815.2 (Against All Defendants) 55, MS. BROWN incorporates by reference herein the preceding paragraphs of the [complaint as though set frth here in full 56, Atallrelovant times herein, DEFENDANT BROOKS, age 54, was aware and knowledgeable that MS. BROWN was in excess of 65 years of age, stating: “have not moved on u before because you're old. But now 1am fred of your Bullshie™. Following this angry tirade, DEFENDANT BROOKS intentionally, and with premeditated and conscious disregard of IS. BROWN'S age, safety, health and constitutional rights, acted with recklessness, malice, and pression as she hit, pushed, struck, assaulted and battered MS, BROWN in the chest, causing [MS. BROWN to fall and sustain head injuries, bruises, and other damages. 57, Asto DEFENDANT BROOKS only, the acts ofthis Defendant as alleged herein, }vere intentional, outrageous, despicable, oppressive, fraudulent, and done with ill wil and intent injure MS. BROWN and fo cause, and did eause, MS. BROWN serious bodily injury, pain, rental anguish, anxiety, loss of enjoyment of lif, severe mental and emotional distress, bumiliation, inconvenience and misery. 58, DEFENDANT BROOKS" acts were done in conscious disregard of MS, [BROWN'S health, safety, constitutional rights, and of the risk of severe emotional harm to MS. ‘he intent to injure, constituting oppression, fraud, and malice under JBROOKS and wi alfornia Civil Code §3294, ening MS, BROWN to punitive damages and attomeys fees lagainst DEFENDANT BROOKS onl. ‘Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for judgment as more fully set forth below. 2 aD CAIN FOR DAMAGESFALSE IMPRISONMENT Gov. Code § 815.2 (Against All Defendants) 59, MS. BROWN incorporates by reference herein the prece ng paragraph ofthe complaint as though set forth hee in fll 60, DEFENDANT BROOKS engaged in negligent, reckless and intentional violent criminal conduc, inflicting physical abuse on MS, BROWN, knocking her down to the ground, and standing over her positioned to strike MS. BROWN again, and knew or should have known {hat MS, BROWN was in fear of moving from her disadvantaged position on the ground, and did not move because of feur of another stike and blow as DEFENDANT BROOKS was standing her positioned and ready to tik her again 61, DEFENDANT BROOKS’ intentional, violent, and criminal conduct constitutes won- consensual, intentional confinement of MS. BROWN, without lawl privilege, and created {he opportunity for the serious hari tat was done to MS. BROWN, DEFENDANT BROOKS" 1 Tisentonal conduct impeded, sloped, and atested MS, BROWN’S freedom and lienty of 8 Trovement 6 62, Aso DEFENDANT BROOKS only, the acts of this Defendant as alleged here 17 | vere intentional, outrageous, despicable, oppressive, feaudulent, and done with il will nd intent 18 Jo injure MS. BROWN and to cause, and dd cause, MS, BROWN serious bodily injury, pain, » rental anguish, anxiety, loss of enjoyment of life, severe mental and emotional distress, lbumiliation, inconvenience and misery. a 63, DEFENDANT BROOKS’ acts were done in conscious disregant of MS. 22 [BROWNS health, safety, constitutional rights, and of the risk of severe emotional harm to MS. 23 [BROOKS sind withthe intent w injue, constituting oppression, faud, and malice under 24 Ialifornia Civil Code $3294, enlitling MS. BROWN to punitive damages and attomeys fees 25 |against DEFENDANT BROOKS only. 6 (Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for judgment as more fully set forth below. 2” 8 USE OF INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, bn ar CR FOR DAMAGESGov. Code § 815.2 (Against All Defendants) 64, MS, BROWN incomporates by eference herein the preceding paragraphs of the mpl as though set forth herein ful 65, DEFENDANT BROOKS intentionally engaged in extreme and outrageous civilized society, and is not tolerated inthis society conduct, which should not be tolerated 66. DEFENDANT BROOKS setions have caused and continue to cause MS. [BROWN substantial losses in earings significant loss of reputation and professional injury, loss f opportunities and other employment benefits, lost wages, attorneys fees, and medical expenses, humiliation, embarrassment and anguish, all to oss of fue earings and benefits, cost of su her damage in an amount according to pro. 61.__Asto DEFENDANT BROOKS only, the aets of this Defendant as alleged herein, 1c intentional, outrageous, despicable, oppressive, faudulent, and done with il will and intent to inure MS. BROWN and to ease, and did eause, MS, BROWN serious bodily injury, pain, neta anguish, anxiety, oss of enjoyment of life, severe mental and emotional distress, tion, inconvenience and misery. 68, DEFENDANT BROOKS’ ects were done in conscious disregard of MS. |BROWN'S heath, safety, constitutions rights, and ofthe risk of severe emotional harm to MS, [BROOKS end with the intent to injure, constituting oppression, fraud, and malice under [california Civil Code $3294, entitling MS, BROWN to punitive damages and atorneys fees 20 jagainst DEFENDANT BROOKS only. 2 ‘Wherefore, Plaintiff prays fr judgment as more fully st forth below. za NEGLIGENCE Pa Gov. Coide § 815.2 (Against All Defendants) i 69, MS. BROWN incorporates by reference herein the preceding paragraphs of the 25 | complaint as though set forth here in full. as 70. AC all relevant times herein, DEFENDANT BROOKS was aware and 27 Henowledgeuble of California Law mandating “Everyone is responsible, not only forthe result 28 Jot nis or her willful nets, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of Mm “AMENDED CAINE FOR DAIAGESjordinary eare or skill in the management of [her] or her property or person. [California Civil Code § 1714 Emphasis added) 71, DEFENDANT BROOKS was negligent from the time she rose from her seat and ted walking directly behind MS, BROWN in a stalking manner, Shelli was following. While jwalking into the large rear bar area, DEFENDANT BROOKS, in hostile manner, demanded that s BROWN “Bay it again! “Say it again!” 72, DEFENDANT BROOKS was negligent in following almost on the heels of MS, JBROWN passing though the narrow hallway, and entering into the cavernous second bar are. JMS, BROWN turned to face her atthe entrance fo the second bar ares. DEFENDANT BROOKS pegligently confronted MS. BROWN, moving closer, invading MS. BROWN's personal space, 1nd yelling: “You are all tath," and “T have not moved on you before because you're old. But now Lam tired of your Bullshit!” This is negligent, unreasonable conduet that a reasonable joman, anda reasonable Publie Servant, a reasonable City Counell Member and a reasonable Federal prosecutor, and any reasonable socialized person would refiain from engaging in, 73, DEFENDANT BROOKS’ actions have caused and continue to cause MS. [BROWN substantial losses in earnings significant loss of reputation and professional injury, loss f opportunities andl other employment benefits, lost wages, atorneys' Fes, and medical expenses, loss of future earings and benefits, cost of suit, humiliation, embarrassment and anguish, allo her damage in an amount according to proof. 74, As(o DEFENDANT BROOKS only, the ucts ofthis Defendant as alleged herein, ill will and intent jvere nudulent, and done wit to injure the MS. BROWN and to cause, and did eause, MS, BROWN serious bodily injury, jona, outrageous, despicable, oppressive, psin, mental anguish anxiety, lss of enjoyment of life, severe mental and emotional distress, Iuumiliation, inconvenience and misery. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 1. For economic and non-economic damages; For prejudgment interest atthe prevaling legal ete; For costs ofthe suit including reasonable attomeys ees; For Punitive Damages Against Defendant Desley Brooks 1s ‘AMENDED CLAIM FOR DAMINGES5. Forall statutory damages, penalties and remedies 6, For such other and further relies the Court may deem proper hove December 14,2015 LAW OFFICES OF BONNER & BONNER