CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

admin
Samples legal papers
February 2, 2023

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

 

[ENTER PLAINTIFF], on behalf of similarly situated parties

                                  Plaintiff

    vs.  

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES OF THE UNITED STATES; DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES; GOVERNMENT ACTOR DOES; ST. FRANCIS,

                                Defendants

 Case No. ______________

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

  1. COMES NOW Plaintiff [ENTER PLAINTIFF] (“Plaintiff), and on behalf of other Plaintiffs similarly situated, with this complaint against the Defendants [ENTER DEFENDANTS] (“Defendants”). The allegations herein are based upon personal knowledge and belief as to the Defendants’ actions and/or inactions and upon information and belief as to all other matters. Plaintiff alleges as follows: 

INTRODUCTION

  1. This is a Class Action lawsuit under Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), brought against the Defendants for Federal Conspiracy, Aggravated Kidnapping, and Negligent Supervising leading to the violation of 42 USC § 1983. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to redress the deprivation under color of law of the rights of families and children as secured by the United States Constitution. 
  2. This case is also brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1346, 1347 to redress the deprivation of Honest Services Health Care Fraud and expose the massive cover up of the individuals involved in 18 U.S.C. § 4, which states that “[w]hoever (owing allegiance to the United States), having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title.”   
  3. The United States Children’s Bureau and the related juvenile justice system was intended to provide safe and stable homes for children who faced abuse and/or neglect in their homes.
  4. Countless Acts of Congress have been passed to keep children safe, stabilize families, and stop human trafficking which often effects children the most. 
  5. The United States Department of Health a Human Services and the Department of Justice are the primary agencies delegated with the task of fulfilling this contract made to the American people by their Congressional representatives. 
  6. These federal agencies have delegated authority to the 50 states, who in-turn delegate authority to local townships and municipalities to carry-out the purpose of these acts on the ground level.
  7. Federal Laws, State Statutes and Welfare Institutions Codes govern the process of removal of children from parents who have been deemed to be abusive and/or neglectful. 
  8. In all 50 states of the United States of America, there are laws that outline the specific grounds for removing children from the custody of their parents, reunifying them with their families, or terminating parental rights if necessary.
  9. Because the right to parent is a fundamental right, dependency proceedings must comport with the fundamental requirements of due process- i.e., Notice and a fair opportunity to participate in the proceeding. 
  10. Moreover, due process afforded to parents in the dependency scheme rely on strict adherence to procedural requirements because even modest procedural irregularities can have prejudicial effects on the parties involved along with long-term damaging consequences.
  11. Accordingly, this Complaint is brought because the dependency scheme between the Federal Government, its agencies, the 50 states, the municipalities, their contractors and the citizens of the United States has been fundamentally corrupted by malicious actors who have breached their fiduciary duty to the people and have broken their sworn oath the protect and uphold the Constitution. 
  12. Instead of being an honest service scheme to keep strengthen families, keep children safe and stop human trafficking, the Children’s Bureau, the Department of Justice and its contractors (here forth referred to as ‘Defendants’) have created an “artifice or scheme to defraud” families to deprive them of their intangible right of honest services. 
  13. The Defendants have simultaneously created an “artifice or scheme” to defraud the United States’ health care benefits programs of trillions of tax-payer dollars, while using false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises to gain custody and control over minor children who will then be trafficked under the guise of their welfare. 
  14. The Defendants have demonstrated a “pattern and practice of enacting and enforcing arbitrary and capricious policies and procedures that are contrary to what the state and federal laws indicate. They “maliciously defy bright line laws” because of the lack of accountability. 
  15. Defendants have abused the processes associated with laws and frustrated the intended purpose and spirit of the laws by those who created the law.  These bad actors who include judges, lawyers, police officers, social workers, health care professionals and sometimes average citizens have exploited the system and redesigned it into an instrument of coercion, retaliation and weaponry against victims who seek redress from abuse with these agencies.   
  16. Plaintiffs in this lawsuit are suing for the Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress enacted upon them by the Defendants through their excessively cruel, humiliating, insurmountably corrupt,  fraudulent court schemes that illegally separated their families and deprived them of their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, family integrity, personal privacy, freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of privacy and access to reproductive health clinics without due process of law, but through arbitrary and capricious decision making.  

PARTIES

  1. Plaintiff, [ENTER NAME], is an individual of address [ENTER ADDRESS]. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of aggrieved citizens of the United States of America residing in different states of United States of America. These Plaintiffs include:
  1. Malachi Chapman, a male adult of sound mind and a resident of 
  2. Plaintiff Melody Rodgers, a female adult of sound mind and a resident of 
  3. Plaintiff Amber Brandt is a female adult of sound mind and a resident of 
  4. Plaintiff Laurie Reynolds is a female adult of sound mind and a resident of 
  5. Plaintiff Tijana Vidanovic is a female adult of sound mind and a resident of 
  6. Plaintiff Cecelia Evertez is a female adult of sound mind and a resident of 
  7. Plaintiff Shanequa B. Austin is a female adult of sound mind and a resident of 
  8. Plaintiff Desiree Peterson is a female adult of sound mind and a resident of
  9. Plaintiff Steven Bradley is a female adult of sound mind and a resident of
  10. Plaintiff Mahogany Hunter is a female adult of sound mind and a resident of
  11. Plaintiff Renesha Tomlin is a female adult of sound mind and a resident of
  12. Plaintiff Dmitri Cash is a female adult of sound mind and a resident of
  13. Plaintiff Teresa Goin is a female adult of sound mind and a resident of
  14. Plaintiff Raymond Sipult is a male adult of sound mind and a resident of Sedgwick County , Wichita Kansas .
  15. Plaintiff Loribeth Aaron is a female adult of sound mind and a resident of
  16. Plaintiff Kenya Cloud is a female adult of sound mind and a resident of
  17. Plaintiff Keyona Bradley is a female adult of sound mind and a resident of 
  18. Plaintiff Kristen-Clark Hassel is a female adult of sound mind and a resident of
  19. Plaintiff Elizabeth Andrews is a female adult of sound mind and a resident of
  20. William O’Dell is a male adult of sound mind and a resident of
  21. Emily O’Dell is a female adult of sound mind and a resident of

 

  1. Defendants are: 
  1. The United States Government
  2. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
  3. The U.S. Department of Justice
  4. The Board of Supervisors for Los Angeles County, California
  5. Xavier Becerra sued in his individual and official capacities. 
  6. Saint Mary’s County Maryland 
  7. Judge Gergory Keith Division #3 sued in his individual and official capacities.
  8. Mark A. Jordan # 13218 sued in his individual and official capacities.
  9. Pamela C. Parker # 21293 sued in her individual and official capacities.
  10. Amanda M. Marino # 21751 sued in her individual and official capacities.
  11. Kristi D. Allen # 25061 sued in her individual and official capacities.
  12. Michael E. Cleary # 09987 sued in his individual and official capacities.
  13. Micheal E. Lazzo # 13022 sued in his individual and official capacities.
  14. Peter C. Hagan # 12105 sued in his individual and official capacities.
  15. Micheal D. Smith # 20719 sued in her individual and official capacities.
  16. Joseph A. Favre # 26225 sued in his individual and official capacities.
  17. Whitney R. Hobson # 26670 sued in her individual and official capacities.
  18. Erica E. Lopez # 24662 sued in her individual and official capacities.
  19. Megan S. monsour # 23452 sued in her individual and official capacities .
  20. Anna M. Jumpponen # 25805 sued in her individual and official capacities.
  21. Denise E. Donnelly-milks # 14299 sued in her individual and official capacities.
  22. Kristi Hannon sued in her individual and official capacities.
  23. Kristina Smith sued in her individual and official capacities.
  24. Linda Arthington sued in her individual and officail capacties.
  25. Covie Adams sued in her individual and official capacities.
  26. Deanna Atckinson sued in her individual and official capacities.
  27. Makayla Ray sued in her individual and official capacities.
  28. Rihanna Sunderland sued in her individual and official capacities.
  29. Melissa Cooley sued in her individual and official capacities 
  30. Candance Johnson sued in her individual and official capacities.
  31. Saint Francis Ministries 
  32. CASA- Court Appointed Special Advocates
  33. Sarah Lueck sued in her individual and official Capacities.
  34. Amber Wangsgard sued in her individual and official capacities.
  35. KFAM – Kansas Family Advisory Network
  36. Nina Shaw woody sued in her individual and official capacities.
  37. Randi Murry sued in her individual and official capacities.
  38. Michael Velazquez sued in his individual and official capacities.
  39. Carol Roberts sued in her individual and official capacities.
  40. John Slusser sued in his individual and official capacities.
  41. Drendra Canidy sued in her individual and official capacities.
  42. Margarita Carlson sued in her individual and official capacities.
  43. Modena Jenkins # 9524 sued in her individual and official capacities.
  44. Colin Fee sued in his individual and official capacities.
  45. Mark D. Goodman sued in his individual and official capacities.
  46. Jane Doe sued in his individual and official capacities.
  47. Jane Doe sued in his individual and official capacities.
  48. Jane Doe sued in his individual and official capacities.
  49. John Dow sued in his individual and official capacities.
  50. John Doe sued in his individual and official capacities.
  51. John Doe sued in his individual and official capacities.
  52. Los Angeles County, California, is joined in this action pursuant to Carver v. Sheriff of LaSalle County, 324 F.3d 947 (7th Cir. 2003). 
  53. Harold Heaton, Martin Walworth, James Bianchetta, Joseph Walton, Jerid Smith, and Jasmine Martin (collectively the “individual deputies”) are sworn Vermilion County sheriff’s deputies who were assigned to the Vermilion County Jail. Each of the individual deputies were agents of defendant Patrick Hartshorn and defendant Vermilion County, Illinois, and were acting within the scope of their agency, and under color of law, at all times mentioned herein. Each of the individual deputies is sued in his or her individual capacity. 
  54. Shelly Harding, R.N., is a registered professional nurse who was an agent of defendant Patrick Hartshorn and defendant Vermilion County, Illinois and was acting within the scope of her agency and under color of law at all times mentioned herein. She is sued in her 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. This Court also has jurisdiction under 1985 & 1986 §1988 and the First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth amendments to the Constitution of the United States. This Court also has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 because: (i) there are [ENTER NUMBER] or more class members, (ii) there is an aggregate amount in controversy exceeding $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and (iii) there is minimal diversity because at least one plaintiff and one defendant are citizens of different states.  
  2. The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1343, which provides for original jurisdiction of District Courts, exclusive of the States, of any action authorized by law to be commenced by any person: to recover damages for injury to his person or property, or because of deprivation of any right or privilege of the citizen of the United States, by an act done in the furtherance of a conspiracy mentioned in 42 U.S.C. §1985; To recover damages from any person who fails to prevent or to aid in preventing any wrongs mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42 which he had knowledge were about to occur and power to prevent;  to redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States; and to recover damages or to secure equitable or other relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights, including the right to vote. Additionally, plaintiffs have a federal question of law regarding “Are the current juvenile dependency laws under state statutes unconstitutional?” See Troxel v. Granville (2000) 530 US 57, 147 L. Ed 2d 49, 120 S. Ct. 2054.
  3. The court further has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1355, which provides that the District Court shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the States, of any action or proceeding for the recovery of any fine, penalty, or forfeiture, pecuniary or otherwise, incurred under any Act of Congress.
  4. The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1357 because the District Court shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action commenced by any person to recover damages for any injury to his person or property on account of any act done to him, under any Act of Congress, for the protection or collection of any revenues, or to enforce the rights of citizens to vote in any state.  
  5. The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1361 because the District Court shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States to or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.
  6. The U.S. District Court may also exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claims that arise from the same facts and circumstances under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
  7. Basically, this case involves the assessment of the “legality of the juvenile dependency proceedings” involving the parties to this action, violation of constitutional rights and intentional misrepresentation and abuse of process by the defendants. The plaintiffs are also entitled to appeal the judgment based on the “legality of the proceeding”.) See In re Troy Z. (1992) 3 4C4th at 1180.
  8. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 Defendants transact business in this district and are subject to personal jurisdiction in this district. Besides, a substantial part of the acts and omissions forming the basis of these claims took place inter-state throughout all states in the United States. Because of the diversity of citizenship, the above-mentioned court has jurisdiction and is the proper venue to bring a complaint.
  9. This case arises under the Anti-Kickback Acts, 41 U.S.C. § 51 (Signed into law by president Ronald Regan on November 7th 1986.)
  10. This case also arises under the Administrative Procedure Act, which was signed into law on June 11th 1946.
  11. This case also arises under the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act – U.S.C. § , (2018).
  12. This case also arises under the Civil Rights Act of U.S.C. § ,(1871).  Signed into law by president Ulysses s. Grant on April 20th 1871.
  13. This case also arises under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, 1453, and 1711-1715 (2005). (Signed into law by President George W. Bush. on February 18th 2005)
  14. This case also arises under the Ethics in Government Act, 12 U.S.C. §  (1978). (Signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on October 26th 1978.)
  15. This case also arises under The Family First Prevention Services Act, U.S.C. § (2018) this was signed into law on February 9th 2018.
  16. This case also arises under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act U.S.C. § (1994). (Signed into law by President Bill Clinton on May 26, 1994)
  17. This case also arises under the Federal Tort Claims Act & Federal Civil Rights Act and [See Heath v. Cleary (9th Cir 1983) 708 F2d 1376, 1378]
  18. The Human Trafficking Prevention, Intervention, & Recovery Act. H.R. 350 – Human Trafficking prevention, intervention, and Recovery Act of 2015 114th Congress (2015-2016).
  19. The Justice For Victims of Trafficking Act Preventing Sex Trafficking and strengthening Families Act of 2014. Signed into law on Sep 29th 2014 by President obama.
  20. The Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act. Preventing sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act 42 USC 1305. Sept 29th 2014.
  21. This case also arises under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act (PFCRA)  31 U.S.C. 3801-3812 was enacted by congress in October of 1986.
  22. This case also arises under the Organized Crime Control Act- RICO. 9-110.000 – Organized Crime And Racketeering was signed into law on October 15th 1970.
  23. The Qui Tam False Claims Act – allows whistleblowers to bring lawsuits against companies and individuals who defraud the Federal Government. Congress passed the False Claims act on March 2, 1863.
  24. This case also arises under the Social Security Act 42 USC 301- 1305 Suppl.4,1934.
  25. This case also arises under the Stop Advertising Victims of Exploitation Act (SAVEACT of 2014) This bill was introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives during the 113th U.S. Congress. 
  26. This case also arises under the Strengthening Child Welfare Response to Trafficking Act H.R. 469-114th congress ( 2015-2016).
  27. This case also arises under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act H.R. 898 – 113th Congress ( 2013- 2014).
  28. This case also arises under the Victims Of Child Abuse Act Title II : Victims of Child Abuse act of 1990.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

  1. This action is brought, and may properly proceed, as a class action, pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(1) and (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 
  2. Plaintiff seeks certification of a Class defined as follows: 

Nationwide Class: Aggrieved citizens of the United States of America residing in different states of United States of America, who have suffered any harm and injury due to the Defendants’ policies and practices alleged herein.

    1. Plaintiff is a proper representative of this class of persons because Plaintiff is a member of the class. 
    2. Plaintiff reserves the right to modify, change, or expand the class definitions if discovery and/or further investigation reveal that they should be expanded or otherwise modified.
    3. Numerosity. The class action is superior to other available methods of adjudication because there are over five (5) members in the proposed class, and repeated individual litigation of the common issues shared by all class members would reduce the amount of recovery available to each member, particularly since establishing the liability of the Defendant and its conspirators will be relatively costly and time-consuming when compared to the amount of each, individual claim.
    4. Existence/Predominance of Common Questions of Fact and Law. The claims set forth in this complaint are common to each member of the class at least regarding the subjection of the members to policies and practices, which deny the Plaintiff’s rights under the color of law, and further the Defendants’ blameworthy actions and/or inactions. 
  • Superiority. A class action is superior to all other available means of fair and efficient adjudication of the claims of members of the Class. The injury suffered by each individual Class member is relatively small in comparison to the burden and expense of individual prosecution of the complex and extensive litigation necessitated by Defendants’ conducts. It would be virtually impossible for members of the Class individually to redress effectively the wrongs done to them by Defendants. Even if Class members could afford such individual litigation, the court system could not. Individualized litigation presents a potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments. Individualized litigation increases the delay and expense to all parties, and to the court system, presented by the complex legal and factual issues of the case. By contrast, the class action device presents far fewer management difficulties, and provides the benefits of single adjudication, an economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court. Upon information and belief, members of the Class can be readily identified and notified.

FACTS

  1. The Defendants enacted and/or applied questionable policies and practices. The Defendants used the said policies and practices to commit fraud through omitting and concealing evidence. 
  2. The Defendants also intentionally made false allegations and misrepresentation of parents in reports. 
  3. The Defendants were also negligent in supervising, training, and in the hiring practices of employees under section 1983. 
  4. The Defendants intentionally agreed to violate federal law and commit an overt act(s) in furtherance of the agreement when they: [ENTER FACTS FOR CONSPIRACY CLAIM].
  5. The Defendants also forcible seized the Plaintiff’s child(ren) and; carried/transported the children from one place to another, with the intent to extort the Plaintiff in order to secure the release of the children. Specifically [ENTER FACTS FOR AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING CLAIM].

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT 1

Federal Conspiracy

  1. The Plaintiff incorporates by reference each preceding and succeeding paragraph as though fully set forth at length herein.
  2. [ENTER FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS].
  3. As a result of the Defendants’ conduct, the Plaintiff suffered [ENTER PARTICULARS OF DAMAGE].

COUNT 2

Violation of 42 USC 1983

  1. The Plaintiff incorporates by reference each preceding and succeeding paragraph as though fully set forth at length herein.
  2. [ENTER FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS].
  3. As a result of the Defendants’ conduct, the Plaintiff suffered [ENTER PARTICULARS OF DAMAGE].

 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated hereby prays that judgment be entered against the Defendants as follows:

  1. Certification of the proposed Class and/or Subclass, appointment of Plaintiff to represent the proposed Class, and notice to the proposed Class to be paid by Defendants;
  2. An order temporarily and permanently enjoining Defendants from continuing the conduct alleged in this Complaint;
  3. Costs, restitution, damages, and penalties in an amount to be determined at trial;
  4. An Order requiring Defendants to pay both pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded; 
  5. An award of costs and attorneys’ fees; and 
  6. That the Court issues any other order that this institution deems just. 

 

JURY DEMAND

 

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury for all claims so triable.

 

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 addresses:

 

[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, we will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible.