Richard Brumfield, Jr. vs Petaluma Police Dept, Sonoma County D.A. and Parties of Intestests 1 thru 40. filed 3/22/2011

8/7/2019 Richard Brumfield, Jr. vs Petaluma Police Dept, Sonoma County D.A. and Parties of Intestests 1 thru 40. filed 3/22/…

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/richard-brumfield-jr-vs-petaluma-police-dept-sonoma-county-da-and-parties 1/19

SUMMONS(CITACION JUDICIAL)

NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:

(AVISO AL DEMANDADO):PF1'IUVI'1fI p o ~ C C ~ / i ' r l ' l / F N T .. I / ' ; ' ~

"..-.f'7 of" . I U 1 0 " ~

fO'':'i f)/s-r/i'lC-t /fffOlllN€'I' co,,fyrY aF SCHoN" Q 1",,1./..<-e,..J,""Iy 01 v " , I c ~ ~ , . . h r- ; . " d DoES J-l{o/ I

YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF :

(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):

RlCHARD BRUMFIELD, an individual;

, J ' ,- "--':(JR:COllI3TUS EONLY(SOLO PARA USO DE LA CORTE)

NAR 22

NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information

below.

You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copyserved on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you . Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear you rcase. There may be a court form that you can use for your response . You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts

Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp). your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you . If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask

the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by de fau lt, and your wages, money, and property

may be taken without further warning from the court.There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney

referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate

these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpc alffomia.org) , the Californ ia Courts Online Sell·Help Center(www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhefp). or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and

costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10 ,000 or more in a civil case . The cou rt's lien must be pa id before the court will dismiss the case .

jA VI$O/ La han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dlas, la corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su versi6n. Lea la Informaci6n acontinuaci6n.

Tiene 30 DiAS DE CALENDARIO despues de que Ie entreguen esta citaci6n y papeles legales para presentar una respuesta par escrito en esta

corte y hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta 0 una lIamada telef6nica no 10 protegen. Su respuesta por escrffo tiene que estaren formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta .Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte y mas informaci6n en el Centro de Ayuda de las Carles de California (wwIN.sucorte.ca .gov), en la

bibfioteca de leyes de su condado 0 en la corte que Ie quede mas cerea. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentaci6n, pida al secretario de la corleque Ie de un formulan'Ode exenei6n de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la corte Ie

podra quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin mas advertencia.Hay otros requisffos legales. Es recomendable que lIame a un abogado inmediatamente. $; no conace a un abogado, puede lIamar a un servicio de

remisi6n a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpla can los requisitos para obtener servicios legales gratuitos de un

programa de servicios legales sin fines de luero. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de /uero en el sma web de California Legal Services,(INwIN.lawhelpcalifomia.org). en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, (wwvv.sucorte.ca.gov) 0 poniendose en contacto can la corte 0 elcolegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Por ley, la corte tiene derecho a reclamar las cuotas -y los costas exentos par imponer un gravamen sabrecua/quier recuperaci6n de $10,000 6 mas de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo a una concesi6n de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene quepagarel gravamen de fa corte antes de que fa corte pueda desecharel caso .

The name and address of the court is: CASE NUMBER:

(EI nombre y direcci6n de la corte es): Sonoma County Superior Court

Hall of Justice, 600 Adm inistration Drive, Santa Ro sa, CA 95403IN,me;z;v_-z. '-1 "'I '3 )"3

Th e name , address , a nd telephone number of plaintiff's attorney , or plaint iff without an attorney, is:(EI nombre, la direcci6n y el numero de leletono del abogado del demandanle, a del demandanle que no liene abogado, es) :Arcolina Panto (SBN:235786) 166 Santa Clara Ave, Oakland, CA 946 10; (510)658-2500

DATE MAR 2 2 2011 Clerk , by JOSE O. GUILLEN

(Fecha) (Secrelario) 1·: :::;1:] Fe" !"""(For proof of service of Ihis summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-OIO).}(Para prueba de entrega de esta citation use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons , (POS·O IO)).

NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED : You are servedISEAL! 1. [2J as an individual defendant.

2. D as the person sued under the fictitious name 01 (specify):

, Deputy

(Adjunlo)

3. m on behalf of (specify). Petaluma Po lice Opt, Sonoma County District Attorney

Foon Adopteclloc Mandatory UseJudiCial Council of CaliforniaSUM-HXl [Rev. July 1, 20091

under: D CCP 416.10 (co rpora tion)D CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation)

D CCP 416.40 (associa tion or partnership)

c=:J other (specify) :

4. D by personal delivery on (date):

SUMMONS

DDD

CCP 416.60 (minor)CCP 416.70 (conservatee)CC P 416.90 (a uthorized person)

Page 1 of 1

Code 01 Civi l Procedure §§ 41 2.20, 465www.coortinfo.C8.goV



1:, It" ' · r . , r - _ CM 010-~ ~ O R N E Y OR PARTY VIJITHOUT ATTORNEYfame)State Bar number, and address} : .!:::::.!.. ~ F : c i ~ : . 9 q r n f (lsE ONt 1Arcolina Panto, Esq. (SBN: 23 786 - •. - ••----. ,_ . ..I

LAW OFFICESt ;1 r- - -'. . . -- f· ,-- 1

166 San ta Clara A venue - -"""".- . " - - ~ Oakland. CA 94610

TElEPHONE NO. ~ 10)658-2500 FAX NO.:

ATIORNEY FOR (N,me): la int i f fRichard Brumf ie ld MAR 22 2011SUPERIOR COURT OF CA LIF OR NIA , COUNTY OF SONOMA

STREET ADDRESS: 600 Administrat ion Drive 0/ :U:..- · ~ . ,, _

MAILING ADDRESS: Rm 107J\ . J \ . ~ I _ ~ ! , ' , ~ . ~ i.jJ.:':·iTOJ ( ',. !i_ r ... r-; , "

CITY AND ZIP CODE· Santa Rosa, CA 95403 ~ ' . I . , ~ ...I ·L I 1. ,1":; ; ' ~ , , •.Ii"; ( OF ('(, ; ~ \ \ 'A

BRANCH NAME: Hal l o f Ju stice . . · .L " i l J , \ "

CASE NAME :

Brumf ie ld v. Petaluma Po l ice, Sonoma County Distr ict Attorney

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case DesignationCASE NUMBER:

[{J Unlimited 0 Limited0 0 ~ Of - 1.-'-{q '3 S-.3

(Amount (Amount Counter Joinder

demanded demanded is Filed with first appearance by defendant JUDGE R E N ~ AUGUSTE CHOUTEA

exceeds $25.000) $25,000 or less) (Ca l. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) DEPT:

Items 1-6 below must be completed (see mstructlOns on page 2)

1. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case:

Auto Tort Contract

D Auto (22) 0 Breach of contracUwarranty (06)

o Uninsured motorist (46) D Rule 3.740 coilections (Og)

Other PIJPOIWD (Personallnjury/Property

Damag elW rongful Death) Tort

o Asbestos (04)

o Product liability (24)

D Medical malpractice (4S)

[ZJ Other Pl fPDIWD (23)

Non·PIIPDIWD (Other) Tort

o Business tortlunfair business practice (07)

o Civil lights (08)

o Defamation (13)

o Fraud (16)

D Intellectual property (19)

o Other collections (09)

D Insurance coverage (18)

D Other contract (37)

Real Property

D Eminent domain/Inversecondemnation (1 4)

o .Wrongful eviction (33)

o Other real property (26)

Unlawful Detainer

D Commercial (31)

D Residential (32)

o Drugs (38)

D Professional negligence (2S) Judicial Review

D Other non-PIIPDIVVD tort (3S) 0 Asset forfeiture (OS)

Employment 0 Petition re : arbitration award (11)

D Wrongful termination (36) D Writ of mandate (02)

D Other employment (1S) 0 Other judicial review (39)

Prov isionally Complex Civil litigation

(Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3,403)

D AntitrustfTrade regulation (03)

o Construction defect (10)

o Mass tort (40)

o Securities litigation (28)

o EnvironmentalfToxic tort (30)

o Insurance coverage claims arising from theabove listed provisionally complex casetypes (41)

Enforcement of Judgment

D Enforcement of judgment (20)

Miscellaneous Civil Complaint

D RICO(27)

o Other comp laint (not specified above) (42)

Miscellaneous Civil Petition

D Partnership and corporate governance (21)

o Other petition (not specified above) (43)

2. This case LJ is W is not complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark thefactors req uiring exceptional judicial management:

a. 0 Large number of separately represented parties

b.O Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel

issues that will be time-consuming to resolve

c. 0 Substantial amount of documentary evidence

3. Remedies sought (check al/ that apply): a .W monetary

4. Number of causes of action (specify): 3

5. This case D is [Z] is not a class action suit.

d. D Large number of witnesses

e. D Coordination wi th related actions pending in one or more cou rts

in other counties , states, or countries, or in a federal court

f. 0 Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision

b.[Z] nonmonetary ; declaratory or injunctive relief c. [ZJ punitive

6. If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case . - 5.)

Date: 3/22/20I I

Arcolina Panto, Esq.

(TYPE OR PRINT NAME) OR ATTORNEY FOR PARTY)

NOTICE• Plaintiff must file this cover sheet w ith the first paper filed in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases filed

under the Probate Code, Fa mily Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220:) Failure to file may result

in sanctions.• File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule .• If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the Califomia Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on al l

other parties to the action or proceeding .

• Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistica l purposes onlv.

Form Adopted for Mandatory UseJudicial Council of CaliforniaCM'{)10 IRev. July 1. 2007)

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET

!Sa e 1 of 2

Cal. Rules of Court. rules 2.30, 3.220, 3.40Q.....3.403, 3.740:Cal. Standards of Judicial Administrat ion, Sid. 3.10

www.courtinfo.ca.gov



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

Arcolina Panto, Esq. (SBN: 235786)

LAW OFFICES

166 Santa Clara Avenue

Oakland, CA 94610(510) 658-2500

11,1P 22 -,-'l v / i

Attorneys for PlaintiffRICHARD BRUMFIELD

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SONOMA - UNLIMITED

RICHARD BRUMFIELD, an individual;

Plaintiff,

v.

PETALUMA POLICE DEPARTMENT, apublic entity of unknown forin; DISTRICTATTORNEY COUNTY OF SONOMA, apublic entity ofunknown form; and DOES1-40,

Defendants.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case No. ~ V - N ' 1 3 ~ 3 1. MALICIOUS PROSECUTION

2. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF

EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

3. NEGLIGENCE [EMOTIONAL DISTRESS]

Plaintiff RICHARD BRUMFIELD (hereinafter "PlaintiffBRUMFIELD") hereby alleges:

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - I



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

I.

NATURE OF ACTION

1. On August 26, 2009, Plaint iff BRUMFIELD was wrongfully arrested on

marijuana charges. Despite the fact that Plaintiff BRUMFIELD showed arresting authorities the

California State issued medical cannabis patient identification card, Defendants did not relent.

Instead, Plaintiff BRUMFIELD, was held injail for weeks where he sufferecI serious and life

threatening physical injury. Defendants continued to prosecute Plaintiff even though he was

always immunized from prosecution pursuant to the laws of the State ofCalifornia. In short,

Defendants failed to respect the laws of the State of California which they are entrusted by the

people to enforce. Plaintiff was prosecuted wrongfully for more than seven months which

caused him inordinate harm and damages.12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2. These events render Defendants liable pursuant to the laws of the State of

California.

3. As a direct consequence of Defendants' illegal acts, Plaintiff suffered economic

consequential , special, and other damages plus attorneys' fees all to his detriment.

I I.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. The substantial majority of the acts complained of occurred in Sonoma Count

and, as such venue is proper.

5. Jurisdiction is proper because Defendants have their principal business withi

Sonoma County and conducted business in the County of Sonoma at all relevant times. Plainti

is informed and believes and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that Defendant

are citizens of Sonoma County, California.

COMPLAlNT FOR DAMAGES - 2



1

2

3

4

5

6

,6. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on the basis of said information and belief

alleges that one or more of the individual Defendants reside within Sonoma as citizens of th

county,

III.

PARTIES

7. Plaintiff BRUMFIELD is an individual, and at all relevant times has lived in th

7 State ofCalifornia.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1 8

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

8, Defendant PETALUMA POLICE DEPARTMENT (hereinafter Defendan

POLICE) is a public entity of unknown form that did business in Sonoma County, California a

all relevant times. Plaintiff alleges Defendant POLICE is a citizen of Sonoma County

California,

9, Defendant SONOMA COUN TY DISTRICT ATTORNEY (hereinafter Defendan

DA) is a public entity of unknown form that did business in Sonoma County, California at al

relevant times. Plaintiff alleges Defendant DA is a citizen ofSonoma County, California.

10. Defendants DOES 1-40 are herein sued under fictitious names. Defendant

DOES 1-20 are business or public entities of unknown form who were hired by Defendants t

advance their own business interests, Their true names and capacities are unknown to Plaintiff

Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that DOES 21-40 were the employees

officers, directors, managing agents, and/or superv isors of Defendants, and/or DOES 1-20, wh

were acting within the course and scope of their employment and authority at all times relevan

to this Complaint

II . At all times herein mentioned, the individual Defendants, both named and yet t

be named as DOES, were agents and/or servants and/or employees of business and public entit

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 3





1

2

3

4

5

for torts of employees committed within the scope of employment. [Perez v. Van Gronigen

Sons Inc. (1986) 41 Ca1.3d 962, 967].

IV.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

16. Plaintiff BRUMFIELD is a disabled Veteran who has dedicated his life to

6 alternative and holistic treatment ofmedical conditions both chronic and temporary.

7

8

9

1 0

11

12

13

14

15

1 6

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

17. Plaintiff BRUMFIELD has spent inordinate time and expense in his efforts to

serve people who are disabled, ill , convalescing or otherwise sickened thereby diminishing their

overall health and wellbeing.

18. Plaintiff BRUMFIELD established Pacific Coast Wellness and Evolution Center

to better advance his purpose of serving those who need alternative and holistic medical

treatment.

19. Pacific Cost Wellness and Evolution Center is a California Non-profit Mutual

Benefit Unincorporated Association, at all relevant times having its principle place of business

and citizenship in California. Pacific Coast Wellness and Evolution Center was located in Santa

Rosa until the illegal acts ofDefendants forced it from that location. At all relevant times,

Plaintiffs Non-Profit was located on Guerneville Road in Santa Rosa, California.

20. Plaintiff BRUMFIELD makes every effort to comply with all applicable laws and

statutes in the State ofCalifornia.

21. Most notably, Plaintiff BRUMFIELD registered his recommendation for

treatment with medical cannabis through the State of California. Plaintiff BRUMFIELD is a

card carrying medical cannabis patient, who voluntarily carries the State of California issued

identification card.




1

2

3

4

22. Plaintiff BRUMFIELD alleges that many medical cannabis patients in California

refuse to apply for the State issued identification card out of fear that they will be identified and

prosecuted.

23. On August 26, 2009, Plaintiff BRUMFIELD was arrested by Defendant POLICE

5 on marijuana charges.

6

7

8

9

10

11

1 2

13

14

1 5

1 6

17

24. Plaintiff BRUMFIELD was held in jail for weeks where he suffered serious and

life threatening medical conditions.

25. Plaintiffs Non-profit Pacific Coast Wellness and Evolution Center ceased regular

operations because it was dependent on PlaintiffBRUMFIELD's ability to conduct its business.

26. Plaint iff BRUMFIELD continued to assert his immunity and affirmative defense

pursuant to the laws of the State ofCalifornia.

27. Maliciously, without probable cause or any legitimate reason, Defendant DA

continued to press charges against Plaintiff BRUMFIELD even after Plaintiff presented his State

issued medical cannabis patient identification card and after Plaintiff asserted his affirmative

defense as a medical cannabis patient.

28. Plaint iff alleges that Defendants acted maliciously when they continued to press

18 charges after Plaintiff BRUMFIELD presented his State issued medical cannabis card and raised

19 the affirmative defense and alleged his complete immunity.

20

21

22

23

24

25

29. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' true purpose was to vex, annoy, harass,

intimidate, and injure legitimate medical cannabis patients.

30. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants either knew or should have known that they had

no legal authority to prosecute Plaintiff BRUMFIELD, and on the contrary, had an obligation not

to arrest or prosecute Plaintiff pursuant to the laws of the State ofCalifornia.

COMPLAlNT FOR DAMAGES - 6



1

2

3

31. Charges against Plaintiff BRUMFIELD were not dropped until March 26, 2010,

more than seven months after the wrongful arrest.

32. Plaintiff alleges that charges were only dropped against him because he absolutel

4 refused to negotiate in any way regarding his immunity from prosecution.

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

33 .

34.

Plaintiff correctly believed he was immune to criminal prosecution.

Defendant DA either knew or should have known that this was a correct assertion

ofPlaintiffBRUMFIELD's, that no plea bargain should have been proffered because Plaintiff

BRUMFIELD was actually completely immune from criminal prosecution and never should

have been arrested.

35. Plaintiff alleges that the malicious actions ofDefendant POLICE were

exacerbated and damages greatly increased by Defendant DA's continued efforts to press

charges.

36. Plaintiff BRUMFIELD alleges that the actions ofDefendants foment and instill

fear in legitimate medical cannabis patients, further discouraging citizens of California from

utilizing what should be protective mechanisms provided by law, specifically the voluntary State

issued identification program.

37. Plaintiff BRUMFIELD alleges that the actions ofDefendants stigmatize law

19 abiding citizens who make every effort to comply with statutory regulations.

20

21

22

23

24

25

38. As a direct consequence of the unlawful events ofDefendants, Plaintiff suffered

general, economic, consequential , emotional, special, and other damages plus attorneys' fees ' and

costs, all to his detriment.

39. Plaintiff BRUMFIELD did timely notify Defendants of his intent to file suit in

September of2010 pursuant to California Government Code Section 910.




1

2

3

40. A representative ofthe City of Petaluma rejected Plaintiff BRUMFIELD's tort

claim form claiming that it was untimely sent.

41. Defendants must not be permitted to deny liability on the basis of a late tort claim

4 because the torts herein alleged did not accrue until the dismissal of the charges.

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

42. Furthermore, Plaintiff BRUMFIELD alleges that the malicious prosecution and

all actions underlying the criminal charges against him did create inordinate emotional distress a

well as causing severe economic harm to himself and his Non-profit, Pacific Coast Wellness and

Evolution Center.

43. Plaintiff alleges that California Government Code Sections 901 , and 911.2

indicate that the tort claim form (described in Section 910) must be presented within six months

of the accrual of the cause of action. Plaintiff alleges that the date of accrual for the torts herein12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

is March 26 , 2010 when the charges against Plaintiff BRUMFIELD were finally dropped.

Regarding malicious prosecution, the cause of action accrues on the date the proceedings were

dismissed or terminated. [Babb v. Superior Court o/Sonoma County (1971) 3 Ca1.3d 841, 846].

44. Plaintiff alleges that claims included in this lawsuit are those for which no failure

to notify pursuant to the tort claim requirements can be alleged.

45 . Plaintiff BRUMFIELD alleges that the severe harm he suffered when he was

wrongfully jailed was proximately caused by the malicious, intentional andlor negligent conduct

of Defendants .

46. Plaintiff alleges that severe harm and damages were caused by the wrongful

actions of Defendants herein alleged.

IIII

COMPLAINT fOR DAMAGES - 8



1

2

347.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Malicious Prosecution

(Against All Defendants)

Plaintiff incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein, each and ever

4 allegation set forth above in this Complaint. As a separate and distinct cause of action, Plaintif f

5 complains against Defendants, and each of them, as follows:

6 48. Plaintiffs alleging malicious prosecution must show that the action taken against

7them was commenced by or at the direction ofDefendants , was pursued to the legal termination

8in Plaintiff's favor, was brought without probable cause, and was initiated with malice.

9[Crowley v. Katleman (1994) 8 Ca1.4th 666, 676].

10

49. Defendants directed criminal action against Plaintiff.11

12

50. Plaintiff presented the State issued identification card which is designed to

13

immunize against prosecution, but Defendants still pressed criminal charges.

51. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, who are charged with enforcing the law, must14

15respect the law in all aspects.

1652. Plaintiff was charged with violations ofCalifornia Health and Safety Code

17 Sections 11359 and 11360 which prohibit transportation and sale ofmarijuana.

18 53. California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.765 specifically prohibits

19prosecution ofHealth and Safety Code Sections 11359 and 11360 for patients who carry the

20

State issued medical cannabis identification card as well as qualified patients who do not choose

21

to participate in the voluntary identification card program.

2 2

54. California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.71(e) prohibits arrest on

23

specified marijuana charges for those who voluntarily participate in the State issued24

identification program for medical cannabis patients.25




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

55. No less than the Supreme Court of California held that one purpose of the 2003

amendments to the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 was to prevent unnecessary arrest. [People

v. Kelly (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1008,1014]. The Kelly Court, explained further its opinion that the

"heart" of the 2003 amendments is in the identification card program that provides an

"affirmative defense" and "protection against arrest." [Id. emphasis in original] .

56. Thus, Defendants were obligated not to arrest Plaintiff and not to prosecute him

pursuant to the laws of the State ofCalifornia and considering the opinion of the Supreme Court

ofCalifornia. Furthermore, as a result of the statutory scheme and the opinion of the Supreme

Court of California, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant entities should be held liable pursuant to

Government Code Section 815.6 since Defendant agencies were under a mandatory duty not to

arrest and not to prosecute and their failure to perform those duties resulted in the very harm that

was supposed to be prevented.

57. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed in their duty to comply with the

Compassionate Use Act of 1996 as amended in 2003 especially considering that Plaintiff

voluntarily carries the State identification card. If agencies such as Defendants can ignore the

rights that are supposed to be conferred by the State issued identification card, then there is no

purpose to the legislation and there is no incentive for any individual to voluntarily participate.

In essence, the program would be pointless. Thus, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to

abide by mandatory duties contained in the above mentioned statutes that were designed to

prevent the very harm incurred.

58. Furthermore, Defendant DA was obligated to dismiss the charges as soon as

Plaintiff raised the affirmative defense. And, Defendant POLICE had no reason to believe

Plaintiff was not complying with the law in every aspect regarding his State identification card.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES-

10



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Thus, Defendant POLICE never should have arrested Plaintiff and Defendant DA was obligated

to drop the charges.

59. Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.775, people like

Plaintiffwho have a valid State identification card, and those who are qualified patients without

the identification card, who associate within the State ofCalifornia in order collectively or

cooperatively to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes must not solely on that basis be subjec

to criminal prosecution under Sections 11357 (possession), 11358 (cultivation/processing),

11359 (sale), 11360 (transport), 11366 (place for di stribution), 11366.5 (management ofplace

for distribution) or 11570 (nuisance). Patients who voluntarily participate in the identification

card program must meet requirements listed in Health and Safety Code Section 11362 .76, and

pay a fee pursuant to Section 11362.715. The incentive to pay the fee and go through extra steps

to get the identification card, is the resulting higher level ofprotection from prosecution pursuant

to Section 11362.765. But, qualified patients without an identification card are also entitled to

protections pursuant to Section I 1362.7(f).

60. Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.78, a state or local

17 law enforcement agency or officer must not refuse to accept the State issued identification card

18 unless the agency or officer has reasonable cause to believe the information contained in the card

19 is false or fraudulent.

20

21

22

23

24

25

61. Defendants must not be permitted to avoid liability based on any in1munity

because of the statutory provisions of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 as amended in 2003

li sted herein that require no arrest be made and no criminal prosecution be charged.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES -II



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1 8

62. Plaintiff's arrest and ongoing prosecution was in direct contravention of the

Compassionate Use Act of 1996 as amended in 2003, referred to herein, thereby rendering

Defendants liable pursuant to Government Code Section 815.6.

63 . Plaintiffalleges that Defendants either knew or should have known of their

obligations pursuant to the law considering Plaintiff was a voluntary participant in the State

issued medical cannabis identification card program; Plaintiff presented his card and asserted the

affirmative defense and his immunity at every opportunity.

64. Criminal proceedings terminated in Plaintiff's favor when Defendant DA

dismissed the charges in the interests of justice.

65. Termination ofprosecution is favorable when it reflects the opinion of the

prosecuting party that the action lacked merit, or would ultimately result in a decision in favor of

the prosecuted party. [Camarena v. Sequoia Ins. Co . (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 1089, 1099].

66. A voluntary dismissal may be a favorable termination sufficient to support a

malicious prosecution action. [Fuentes v. Berry (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th \800, 1808]. Usually, a

voluntary unilateral dismissal is a termination in favor of the defendant. [Id.].

67.

68.

No proper purpose underlies Plaintiffs arrest and subsequent prosecution.

Plaintiff alleges Defendants' wrongful actions as alleged herein were designed to

1 9 vex, annoy, harass and injure Plaintiff.

20

21

22

23

24

25

69. Plaintiff alleges Defendants had malicious motives and a desire to deliberately

destroy his Non-profit caregiving association, Pacific Coast Wellness and Evolution Center.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were successful in their attempts to remove him from the prior

location ofPacific Coast Wellness and Evolution Center, and that this caused inordinate expense

and hardship for Plaintiff.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES-12



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

70. Plaint iff alleges that Defendants must not be permitted to prosecute medical

cannabis patients in contravention of California law or to subvert the will of the people of

California as expressed though the intent of the California legislature and current legislation.

71. As a direct consequence of the unlawful events of Defendants, Plaintiff suffered

general, economic, consequential, emotional, special, and other damages plus attorneys' fees and

costs, all to his detriment. Plaintiff claims compensatory damages, punitive damages and

attorneys' fees pursuant to Babb v. Superior Court ofSonoma County and California Civil Code

Sections 3333 (compensatory), 3294 (punitive) and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021 et seq.

(attorneys' fees). [Supra ., 3 Ca1.3d 848 n.4l .

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, a

more fully set forth below.

72.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Intentional Infliction ofEmotional Distress

(Against All Defendants)

Plaintiff incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein, each and eve

allegation set forth above in this Complaint.

73. As a separate and distinct cause of action, Plaintiff complains against Defendants

18 and each of them, as follows:

1 9 74. California case law allows a Plaintiff to recover damages for intentional inflictio

20of emotional distress if he or she suffers severe emotional injury caused by the defendant'

21outrageous conduct with the intent to cause, or with reckless disregard of the probability 0

2 2

causing, emotional distress. [Wilkins v. National Broad. Co., (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1066

231087].

2 4

25

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES -13



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

75. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the actions 0

Defendants, and each of them, as aforesaid, were intentional, extreme, and outrageous. Plaintif

is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that such actions were done with the inten

to cause serious emotional distress or with reckless disregard of the probability of causin

Plaintiff serious emotional distress.

76. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants, and each of them, a

aforesaid, Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress which has caused Plaintiff to susta'

severe, serious and permanent injuries to his person, all to his damage in a sum to be show

according to proof and within the jurisdiction ofthis court.

77. As a direct, legal and proximate result of the aforesaid tortious conduct 0

Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff was prevented for a time from engaging in his usua

occupation, thereby sustaining a loss of income, all to Plaintiff's damage in a sum to be show

according to proof.



78.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Negligence [Emotional Distress)

(Against AIl Defendants)

Plaintiff incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein, each and eve

allegation set forth above in this Complaint. As a separate and distinct cause of action, Plaintif

complains against Defendants, and each of them, as follows:

79. To prevail on a negligence theory of liability a Plaintiff must prove duty, breach

causation and damages. [Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Ca1.4th 1200, 1205].

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES-

14



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

SO. The duty is defendant ' s duty to protect plaintiff from harm. [Bily v. Arthur Youn

& Co. (1992) 3 Ca1.4th 370, 397].

Sl . Whether or not a duty actually exists between plaintiff and defendant is a questio

oflaw. [Kentucky Fried Chicken o/Cal. v. Superior Court (1997) 14 Ca1.4 th 814, 819].

S2. A determination that a duty exists reflects a policy decision that an individua

plaintiff should be protected from harm. [Dillon v. Legg (1968) 68 Cal.2d 728, 734].

83. In cases of certain types, liability is appropriate for damage done. [Tarasoff v.

Regents ofUnivers ily ofCalifornia (1976) 17 Ca1.3d 425, 434].

84. Plaintiffs may recover for emotional distress that is proximately caused b

defendants' negligent conduct or violation of a statutory standard. [Molien v. Kaiser Foundatio

Hospitals (1980) 27 Cal.3d 916].12

13

14

1 5

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

2 5

85. .In regards to negligent infliction of emotional distress (hereinafter NIED), it is no

its own tort but a form of negligence. [Marlene F. v. Affiliated Psychiatric Medical Clini

(1989) 48 Ca1.3d 583].

86. Allegations herein are of Plaintiff as the direct victim, so that bystander NIE

cases are not applicable, and principles of negligence determine whether all elements of the to

are established. [Zavala v. Arce (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 915, 918].

87. Negligence per se may be established when: I) a defendant violated a statute; 2

the violation proximately caused injury; 3) the injury resulted from an occurrence the nature 0

which the statute was designed to prevent; and 4) the Plaintiff was in the class of persons fo

whose protection the statute was adopted. [See Capolungo v. Bondi (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 346

349].

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - IS



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

88. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants breached a mandatory duty pursuant t

Government Code Section 815.6 and several statutory duties pursuant to the Compassionate Us

Act of 1996 as amended in 2003. These breaches did proximately cause injury which th

statutory scheme was designed to prevent, and Plaintiff is in the class of persons for whos

protection the statutes were adopted because he is a medical cannabis patient who voluntaril

participates in the State issued medical cannabis patient identification card program.

89. Furthermore, Defendants are charged with protecting all citizens of the State 0

California and all residents and businesses in Petaluma City and Sonoma County. As a citizen 0

the State of California, Defendants were obligated to promote and preserve Plaintiffs rights

Defendants trounced Plaintiff's rights without any regard for the law which they are supposed t11

12

13

14

1 5

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

2 5

protect. Thus, Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff as a citizen, and failed in that duty, thereb

causing harm to the Plaintiff of a type that was foreseeable and proximately caused b

Defendants wrongful actions.

89. As a direct and proximate result of the actions ofDefendants, and each of them, a

aforesaid, Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress, physical injury to his person, and oth

harm including loss of income and devastating losses to his Non-profit, Pacific Coast Wellnes

and Evolution Center, all of which was a foreseeable result of Defendants' wrongful actions.

90. As a direct, legal and proximate result of the aforesaid negligent conduct 0

Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff was prevented for a time from engaging in his usua

occupation, thereby sustaining a loss of income, all to Plaintiff's damage in a sum to be show

according to proof.



COMPLAIN T FOR DAMAGES - 16



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

1 2

13

1 4

15

16

17

1 8

1 9

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

I) For compensatory damages;

2) For general and special damages;

3) For punitive damages;

4) For costs of suit, expenses and attorneys' fees ;

5) For declaratory, injunctive and such other relief as the Co

considers proper under the circumstances.

Dated: March 21 , 20 II LAW OFFICES

By: ~ ~ - - ~ A r ~ c 0 1 ~ i n ~ a ~ p K a ~ n ~ t o ~ , ' E ~ s ~ q ~ . - - - - - - - -Attorneys for PlaintiffRICHARD BRUMFIELD

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial on all issues triable by jury.

Dated: March 21, 2011 LAW OFFICE OF ARCOLINA PANTO

By: ~ f f ~ 4 - - - / ~ a n t O ; E S q . Attorneys for PlaintiffRICHARD BRUMFIELD


Documents

Richard Brumfield, Jr. vs Petaluma Police Dept, Sonoma County D.A. and Parties of Intestests 1 thru 40. filed 3/22/2011