EUN JUNG LIM

[ENTER ADDRESS]

Plaintiff in Pro Per

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUN JUNG LIM,                             Plaintiff             and CITY OF IRVINE AND IRVINE POLICE DEPARTMENT; MICHAEL HAMEL, in his official and individual capacity; MICHAEL MCNALL, in his official and individual capacity; RENE NUTTER in her official and individual capacity; SEAN PAUL CRAWFORD in his official and individual capacity; ERIC STEELE in his official and individual capacity; MICHELE HINIG in her official and individual capacity; JAMES MOORE in his official and individual capacity; WILLIAM RUSSELL in his official and individual capacity; JERRY POOLE in his official and individual capacity; MISTY DANIELS in her official and individual capacity; TODD SPITZER in his official and individual capacity; DUSTIN RICE in his official and individual capacity; TAYLOR KRONE in her official and individual capacity; ALLISON TAYLOR TARGOFF in her official and individual capacity; and GAGANJOT BATTH, in her official and individual capacity.                             Defendants

Case No.: _____________ AMENDED COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMES NOW Plaintiff EUN JUNG LIM, with this complaint against the Defendants, and alleges as follows:

NATURE OF ACTION

1. This case involves an incidence that took place on January 25, 2020 at the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, where the Plaintiff was assaulted and her phone stolen by Herbert Conrad, who was a Security Officer at the hospital. After the assault and cellphone stolen from her possession, the Irvine Police Department charged the Plaintiff based on a Police report containing false allegations that the Plaintiff was the one who assaulted Herbert Conrad. It is worth noting that the cell phone being taken from a family member’s possession is not hospital policy and therefore, the false allegations in the police report appeared to make Conrad on the right to steal a family member’s possession. The case was later dismissed. Plaintiff now files this case to seek redress against the Defendants in that regard.

PARTIES

• Plaintiff, EUN JUNG LIM, is an individual of address [ENTER ADDRESS].
• Defendant CITY OF IRVINE AND IRVINE POLICE DEPARTMENT of address 1 Civic Center Plaza Irvine, CA 92606-5207 is city and the local law enforcement agency of the city of Irvine, California, United States. This Defendant is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, for the actions and/or inactions of Michelle L. Hinig.

• Defendant, MICHAEL HAMEL of address [ENTER ADDRESS], is the former Irvine Police Department Chief. This Defendant is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, for the actions and/or inactions of the Defendant police officers. Plaintiff sues him in both his official and individual capacity. 
• Defendant, SEAN PAUL CRAWFORD, of address 1 Civic Center Plaza Irvine CA 92606-5207, was/is a Sergeant Detective at the Irvine Police Department.  This Defendant is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, for the actions and/or inactions of Michelle L. Hinig. Plaintiff sues him in both his official and individual capacity. 
• Defendant, MICHELE HINIG, of address [ENTER ADDRESS], was a Detective at the Irvine Police Department. Plaintiff sues her in both her official and individual capacity. 
• Defendant, RENE NUTTER, of address 1 Civic Center Plaza Irvine CA 92606-5207, was/is a Police Officer at the Irvine Police Department. Plaintiff sues her in both her official and individual capacity. 
• Defendant, MICHAEL MCCALL, of address 1 Civic Center Plaza Irvine CA 92606-5207, was/is a Police Officer at the Irvine Police Department. Plaintiff sues him in both his official and individual capacity. 
• Defendant, ERIC STEELE, of address 1 Civic Center Plaza Irvine CA 92606-5207, was/is a Police Officer at the Irvine Police Department. Plaintiff sues him in both his official and individual capacity. 
• Defendant, JAMES MOORE, of address 1 Civic Center Plaza Irvine CA 92606-5207, was/is a Police Officer at the Irvine Police Department.  This Defendant is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, for the actions and/or inactions of Rene Nutter, Mike McCall, and Eric Steele. Plaintiff sues him in both his official and individual capacity.     
• Defendant, WILLIAM RUSSELL, of address 1 Civic Center Plaza Irvine CA 92606-5207, was/is a Sergeant at the Irvine Police Department. This Defendant is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, for the actions and/or inactions of Rene Nutter, Mike McCall, and Eric Steele. Plaintiff sues him in both his official and individual capacity.   
• Defendant, JERRY POOLE, of address [ENTER ADDRESS], was/is an Assistant Investigator at the DA’s office. Plaintiff sues him in both his official and individual capacity. 
• Defendant, MISTY DANIELS, of address [ENTER ADDRESS], was/is a Lead Investigator at the DA’s office. This Defendant is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, for the actions and/or inactions of the DA officer(s) responsible for the prosecution of the Plaintiff. Plaintiff sues her in both her official and individual capacity. 
• Defendant, TODD SPITZER, of address 300 N. Flower Street Santa Ana, California 92703, is the District Attorney of Orange County, California. This Defendant is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, for the actions and/or inactions of the DA officer(s) responsible for the prosecution of the Plaintiff. Plaintiff sues him in both his official and individual capacity. 
• Defendant, DUSTIN RICE, of address 300 N. Flower Street Santa Ana, California 92703, is the Assistant District Attorney of Orange County, California. This Defendant is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, for the actions and/or inactions of the DA officer(s) responsible for the prosecution of the Plaintiff. Plaintiff sues him in both his official and individual capacity. 
• Defendant, TAYLOR KRONE, of address 300 N. Flower Street Santa Ana, California 92703, is the Assistant District Attorney of Orange County, California. This Defendant is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, for the actions and/or inactions of the DA officer(s) responsible for the prosecution of the Plaintiff. Plaintiff sues her in both her official and individual capacity. 
• Defendant, ALLISON TAYLOR TARGOFF, of address 300 N. Flower Street Santa Ana, California 92703, is the Assistant District Attorney of Orange County, California. This Defendant is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, for the actions and/or inactions of the DA officer(s) responsible for the prosecution of the Plaintiff. Plaintiff sues her in both her official and individual capacity. 
• Defendant, GAGANJOT BATTH, of address 300 N. Flower Street Santa Ana, California 92703, is the Assistant District Attorney of Orange County, California. This Defendant is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, for the actions and/or inactions of the DA officer(s) responsible for the prosecution of the Plaintiff. Plaintiff sues her in both her official and individual capacity. 

JURISDICITON AND VENUE

1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 USC § 1331, on the basis of there being a federal question relating to 42 USC § 1983.
2. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 as Plaintiff and the Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this state. Plaintiff and the Defendants live within the jurisdiction of this Court. Besides, a substantial part of the acts and omissions forming the basis of these claims occurred in the Central District of California and arose from the actions or inactions of the Defendants.

FACTS

• Plaintiff’s mother had been admitted at the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian.
• The incidence that gave rise to this action took place on January 25, 2020, when the Plaintiff went to visit the mother.
• As Plaintiff was checking in at the ER at the said hospital, Herbert Conrad stole Plaintiff’s phone from the ER lobby and pushed the Plaintiff until Plaintiff fell.
• The police officers arrived. Notably, Defendants Rene Nutter, Michael McCall, and Eric Steele were the officers present at the scene. Defendant Michael McCall took a police report of the incidence, and took pictures of Plaintiff’s hands. Interestingly, Herbert Conrad gave false information that Plaintiff was the one who punched his face. It is worth noting that Defendant Michael McCall included the false allegations in the police report without ascertaining their veracity thereof. Later on, Defendant Michele Hinig went to the hospital and saw the video footage of the scene but lied. The said Defendant proceeded to make a declaration for warrant of my arrest, charging me with assault and battery. The video footage was therefore not given due consideration in the prosecution of the case. Accordingly, Plaintiff was charged and was prosecuted by the Orange County DA, based on the said fabricated report. She made several attempts to challenge the prosecution. For instance, she wrote letters to Defendant Todd Spritzer at the DA’s main and Regional Office at the Harbor Justice Center, with a specific request to view the footage of the hospital surveillance to ascertain that the allegations against me in the police report was utterly false. However, no consideration was given to the video footage.
• During the pendency of the said case, the Plaintiff made formal requests to Irvine Police Department Records when Mike Hamel was Police Chief to obtain Michelle L. Hinig’s Declaration in Support of Arrest warrant, in a bid to have evidence of Herbert Conrad’s fabricated allegations. The Plaintiff was only given a copy of the report after the case was dismissed. This amounts to a violation of the Plaintiff’s due process rights that are guaranteed under the Constitution.
• Interestingly, the said case was dismissed on June 2020.
• It is also worth noting that during the trial of the said case, the hospital camera footage that recorded the events of January 25, 2020 was not considered in the Prosecution of the case against the Plaintiff. Further, the hospital would only release the footage if a subpoena was issued. Instead, neither the DA nor the police obtained a subpoena for the production of the video surveillance. 
• Unfortunately, Plaintiff’s mother died during the pendency of the case against Plaintiff. Further, Plaintiff has been subjected to emotional harm and distress pursuant to the malicious prosecution and the acts and/or inactions of the Defendants.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT 1

VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF’S 14^TH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS RIGHTS

(Against all Defendants)

• The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 28 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.
• Due process requires that the procedures by which laws are applied must be evenhanded, so that individuals are not subjected to the arbitrary exercise of government power. Accordingly, due process requires, at a minimum: (1) notice; (2) an opportunity to be heard; and (3) an impartial tribunal. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank (1950).
• It follows; due process also requires an opportunity for confrontation and cross-examination, and for discovery; that a decision be made based on the record. Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 81 (1972).
• In the instant action, the Defendants violated Plaintiff’s due process rights when they subjected Plaintiff to prosecution based on false allegations.
• Defendant Michelle L. Hinig accepted Herbert’s false allegations without inviting him to strict proof thereof. Further, Defendant Michelle L. Hinig failed to consider the video footage of the incident, which shows that the Defendant was innocent.
• The DA office failed to consider the said footage, and proceeded to prosecute the Plaintiff based on the false allegations in the police report.
• The Supervisors and Superiors at the Irvine Police Department and at the DA’s office are liable for the individual Defendants’ actions and/or inactions under the doctrine of respondeat superior.   
• The Defendants’ actions and/or inactions were so arbitrary and capricious that they completely disregarded the salient constitutional safeguards for fair trial.
• As a result of Defendants’ actions and/or inaction, Plaintiff has been subjected to injuries consequential and incidental to the actions and/or inactions as alleged herein. These include emotional harm and distress; harm on Plaintiff’s reputation; loss of employment; medical expenses in seeking psychiatry help; misery, pain, and suffering as a result of losing employment; and the death of her mother.

COUNT 2

VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF’S 14^TH AMENDMENT EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS

(Against all Defendants)

• The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 37 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.
• The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in pertinent part that no State shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.
• In order to establish a violation of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Plaintiffs first must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) the Defendants treated them differently/discriminatorily from other similarly situated individuals, (2) this different/discriminatory treatment impermissibly infringed on the exercise of Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to freedom of speech, and (3) was not necessary to serve a compelling governmental interest. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985).
• In the instant action, the Defendants either directly or indirectly subjected the Plaintiff to prosecution based on false allegations. All attempts by the Plaintiff to have the video surveillance footage examined, was futile. The Plaintiff avers that she was discriminatorily treated when the Defendants refused to consider evidence from the footage. It is clear that the Plaintiff was unfairly treated because no explanation was given as to why the footage could not be relied upon in the dismissed case.
• As a result of the differential treatment, the Plaintiff was unfairly prosecuted thus violating her rights that are guaranteed under the Constitution.
• There is no legitimate reason to explain the Defendants’ actions and/or inactions. For this reason, the lack of a compelling government interest in prosecuting the Plaintiff based on false allegations, and failure to consider video evidence, amounts to blatant violation of Plaintiff’s equal protection rights.
• As a result of Defendants’ actions and/or inaction, Plaintiff has been subjected to injuries consequential and incidental to the actions and/or inactions as alleged herein. These include emotional harm and distress; harm on Plaintiff’s reputation; loss of employment; medical expenses in seeking psychiatry help; misery, pain, and suffering as a result of losing employment; and the death of her mother.

COUNT 3

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

(Against all Defendants)

• The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 44 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.
• Under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, every person in the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens.
• In the instant action, the Plaintiff belongs to a racial minority. Plaintiff, just like any other American, expects to enjoy all the constitutionally guaranteed rights.
• However, in violation of the Plaintiff’s rights, the Defendants refused to accept and/or consider the evidence of the video footage, which would show that the Plaintiff is innocent, and that the report in the police report was false.
• As a result of Defendants’ actions and/or inaction, Plaintiff has been subjected to injuries consequential and incidental to the actions and/or inactions as alleged herein. These include emotional harm and distress; harm on Plaintiff’s reputation; loss of employment; medical expenses in seeking psychiatry help; misery, pain, and suffering as a result of losing employment; and the death of her mother.

COUNT 4

MALICIOUS PROSECUTION

(Against Defendants Jerry Poole, Misty Daniels, Todd Spitzer, Dustin Rice, Taylor Krone, Allison Taylor and Gaganjot Batth)

• The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 49 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.
• Malicious prosecution amounts to the filing of a lawsuit for an improper purpose, and without grounds or probable cause. The common law tort of malicious prosecution generally requires four elements: (1) the defendant must have initiated a criminal proceeding; (2) the proceeding must have ended in the plaintiffs favor; (3) the proceeding must have been initiated without probable cause; and (4) the defendant must have acted maliciously in the initiation of the prosecution.’ See Usher v. City of LA., 828 F.2d 556, 562 (9th Cir. 1987); see also RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 653.
• In the instant action, the Defendants initiated a criminal proceeding against the Plaintiff. The said case was dismissed.
• The Defendants initiated the prosecution based on false allegations, and without probable cause. Besides, the Defendants refused to consider the footage from the hospital, which would have shown that the Plaintiff is innocent.
• Plaintiff avers that a total disregard of contrary evidence is malicious.
• As a result of Defendants’ actions and/or inaction, Plaintiff has been subjected to injuries consequential and incidental to the actions and/or inactions as alleged herein. These include emotional harm and distress; harm on Plaintiff’s reputation; loss of employment; medical expenses in seeking psychiatry help; misery, pain, and suffering as a result of losing employment; and the death of her mother.

COUNT 5

VIOLATING PLAINTIFF’S RIGHTS UNDER COLOUR OF LAW

(Against all Defendants)

• The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 55 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.
• The Defendants (the City of Irvine, the Police Department, the Police Officers, the Detectives, the Officers at the DA’s office), acting under the color of law violated Plaintiff’s due process rights and other rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
• Without probable cause, the Police erroneously charged the Plaintiff and the DA’s office prosecuted the Plaintiff, in reckless disregard for the truth. As prosecuting attorneys, the DA Defendants were placed under a duty to present all material facts and/or evidence before the Court. It is worth noting that in a criminal case, the corpus delicti must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that a crime has been committed. However, in contradiction to their expectation, the Defendants failed to consider evidence from the video footage.
• The actions and/or inactions of the Defendants violated Plaintiff’s rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution.
• As a result of Defendants’ actions and/or inaction, Plaintiff has been subjected to injuries consequential and incidental to the actions and/or inactions as alleged herein. These include emotional harm and distress; harm on Plaintiff’s reputation; loss of employment; medical expenses in seeking psychiatry help; misery, pain, and suffering as a result of losing employment; and the death of her mother.

COUNT 6

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

(Against all Defendants)

• The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 60 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference.
• The actions and/or inactions of the Defendants, as set forth above, was extreme, and outrageous.
• The Defendants ought to have reasonably known that their actions and/or inactions would cause severe harm on Plaintiff.
• The Defendants failed to consider the adverse effects of their actions and/or inactions on Plaintiff. Notably, they failed to acknowledge the fact that such actions and/or inactions would cause Plaintiff emotional harm and distress. 
• As a result of Defendants’ actions and/or inaction, Plaintiff has been subjected to injuries consequential and incidental to the actions and/or inactions as alleged herein. These include emotional harm and distress; harm on Plaintiff’s reputation; loss of employment; medical expenses in seeking psychiatry help; misery, pain, and suffering as a result of losing employment; and the death of her mother.

COUNT 7

 INDEMNIFCATION CLAIM

Cal. Gov. Code. § 825 – 825.6

 (Against Defendant City of Irvine)

• Plaintiff restates and realleges all the statements made in paragraphs of this Complaint as through fully set forth herein.
• The California Government Code imposes vicarious liability for public employees and independent contractors (Gov. Code, § 815.2 and § 815.4.). It also imposes liability on a public entity for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment if the act or omission would, apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of action. (Gov. Code, § 815.2).
• Defendant CITY OF IRVINE was, at all times material to this Complaint, the employer of the police defendants.
• The individual defendants committed the acts alleged above in the scope of their employment as employees of Defendant CITY OF IRVINE.
• As a result of Defendants’ actions and/or inaction, Plaintiff has been subjected to injuries consequential and incidental to the actions and/or inactions as alleged herein. These include emotional harm and distress; harm on Plaintiff’s reputation; loss of employment; medical expenses in seeking psychiatry help; misery, pain, and suffering as a result of losing employment; and the death of her mother.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff requests trial by jury on all issues so triable.  

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Eun Lim, is entitled to damages from the Defendants, and he hereby prays that judgment be entered in her favor and against the Defendants as follows:

1. That Defendants be required to pay Plaintiff general damages, including emotional distress, in a sum to be ascertained at a trial of this matter,
2. That Defendants be required to pay Plaintiff special damages,
3. That Defendants, be required to pay Plaintiff ‘s fees time pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988, or any other applicable provision,
4. That Defendants required to pay Plaintiff punitive damages in a sum to be ascertained at a trial of this matter,
5. That Defendants be required to pay Plaintiff costs of the suit herein incurred, and
6. That Plaintiff be granted such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

Respectfully submitted:

Dated: __________

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

            I hereby certify that on [ENTER DATE], copies of the foregoing document have been sent to the Defendants in the following address:

            [ENTER DEFENDANTS’ ADDRESSES]

DATED:                                                                         

 

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )