Complaint (filed Copy)
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Complaint (filed Copy) as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 3,094
- Pages: 12
Case 2:09-cv-01264-ECV
1 2 3
Document 1
Filed 06/11/2009
Page 1 of 12
Lorona, Steiner, Ducar & Horowitz, Ltd. 3003 North Central Avenue, Suite 1800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2909 Telephone: (602) 277-3000 Facsimile: (602) 277-7478
4 5 6 7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3003 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE, SUITE 1800 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3909 (602) 277-3000
9
LORONA, STEINER, DUCAR & HOROWITZ, LTD.
Jess A. Lorona, #009186 Gregory E. McClure, #022587 Attorneys for Plaintiff
Glen R. Scotti, an individual, Plaintiff,
10 11
vs.
12
City of Phoenix, a political subdivision of the State of Arizona; City of Phoenix Police Department, an Arizona law enforcement agency; Jack Harris and Jane Doe Harris, husband and wife; Mary Freund and John Doe Freund, husband and wife; Christina Gonzalez and John Doe Gonzalez, husband and wife; David Sampson and Jane Doe Sampson, husband and wife; Sandra Renteria and John Doe Renteria, husband and wife.
13 14 15 16 17 18
Case No. CV09-1264-PHX COMPLAINT
19 Defendants. 20 21 22
Plaintiff, Glen R. Scotti, by and through his counsel undersigned, hereby alleges as follows for his Complaint against Defendants:
23 24 25
PARTIES AND JURISDICTION 1.
Plaintiff, Glen R. Scotti (“Mr. Scotti”), is, at all times relevant, a resident
of Maricopa County, Arizona. 1
Case 2:09-cv-01264-ECV
1 2 3 4
2.
Document 1
Filed 06/11/2009
Page 2 of 12
Defendant, City of Phoenix, is, at all times relevant, a political
subdivision of the State of Arizona, located in Maricopa County, Arizona. 3.
Defendant City of Phoenix Police Department is at all times relevant to
this Complaint, an Arizona law enforcement agency, located in Maricopa County,
5 6
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3003 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE, SUITE 1800 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3909 (602) 277-3000
LORONA, STEINER, DUCAR & HOROWITZ, LTD.
7
Arizona. 4.
Defendants, Jack Harris (“Chief Harris”) and Jane Doe Harris, are, at all
8
times relevant, husband and wife residing in Maricopa County, Arizona. Defendant
9
Jack Harris holds the position of Chief of Police in and for the City of Phoenix. All
10 11
actions taken by Defendant Jack Harris were on behalf of the marital community. 5.
Defendants, Mary Freund (“Detective Freund”) and John Doe Freund,
12 are, at all times relevant, husband and wife residing in Maricopa County, Arizona. At 13 14
all times relevant, Defendant Mary Freund held the position of detective in and for the
15
City of Phoenix Police Department in the Family Investigations Bureau. All actions
16
taken by Defendant Mary Freund were on behalf of the marital community.
17 18 19
6.
Defendants, Christina Gonzalez (“Lieutenant Gonzalez”) and John Doe
Gonzalez, are, at all times relevant, husband and wife residing in Maricopa County, Arizona. At all times relevant, Defendant Christina Gonzalez held the position of
20 Detective in and for the City of Phoenix Police Department in the Family 21 22
Investigations Bureau. Upon information and belief, Defendant Christina Gonzalez
23
has since been promoted to Lieutenant. All actions taken by Defendant Christina
24
Gonzalez were on behalf of the marital community.
25
2
Case 2:09-cv-01264-ECV
1 2 3 4
7.
Document 1
Filed 06/11/2009
Page 3 of 12
Defendants, David Sampson (“Detective Sampson”) and Jane Doe
Sampson, are, at all times relevant, husband and wife residing in Maricopa County, Arizona. At all times relevant, Defendant David Sampson held the position of Detective in and for the City of Phoenix Police Department in the Family
5 6 7
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3003 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE, SUITE 1800 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3909 (602) 277-3000
LORONA, STEINER, DUCAR & HOROWITZ, LTD.
8
Investigations Bureau. All actions taken by Defendant David Sampson were on behalf of the marital community. 8.
Defendants, Sandra Renteria (“Commander Renteria”) and John Doe
9
Renteria, are, at all times relevant, husband and wife residing in Maricopa County,
10
Arizona. At all times relevant, Defendant Sandra Renteria held the position of
11
Lieutenant in and for the City of Phoenix Police Department in the Family
12 Investigations Bureau. Upon information and belief, Defendant Sandra Renteria has 13 14 15
since been promoted to Commander. All actions taken by Defendant Sandra Renteria were on behalf of the marital community.
16
9.
Subject matter jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
17
10.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, venue is proper in this Court.
18 19
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 11.
Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation set forth above as if fully
20 set forth herein. 21 22
12.
On or about May 29, 2007, at approximately 6:57 a.m., nearly a dozen
23
Phoenix Police Officers stormed the home of Plaintiff. Plaintiff is a former law
24
enforcement officer with no prior history of criminal activity.
25
3
Officers used a
Case 2:09-cv-01264-ECV
Document 1
Filed 06/11/2009
Page 4 of 12
1
battering ram to break down the front door and exerted excessive and unreasonable
2
force on the person of Plaintiff.
3 4
13.
The search warrant executed on the morning of May 29, 2007 was
willfully and intentionally procured through the use of false and fabricated evidence
5 6
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3003 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE, SUITE 1800 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3909 (602) 277-3000
LORONA, STEINER, DUCAR & HOROWITZ, LTD.
7
by Defendants Freund and Gonzalez. 14.
Defendant Freund had befriended an alleged victim in a domestic
8
violence investigation named Kimberly Lewis (“Lewis”). Defendant Freund first met
9
Lewis in approximately March of 2002. At that time, Lewis was embroiled in a
10 11
divorce proceeding with her former husband Andrew Rehkow (“Rehkow”).
Upon
information and belief, throughout the course of the dissolution proceedings, Lewis
12 made a multitude of false accusations of alleged criminal activity by Rehkow. These 13 14
accusations led to an ongoing criminal investigation against Rehkow that began in
15
March of 2002 and continued for a number of years. Throughout that time period,
16
Defendant Freund remained the lead investigator for the Rehkow investigation.
17 18 19
15.
From March of 2002 through June of 2007, Defendant Freund served as
a personal confidant and friend to Lewis while purportedly investigating Rehkow for criminal violations.
Upon information and belief, Defendant Freund became
20 personally and emotionally involved in with Lewis.
Defendant Freund’s
21 22
granddaughter began taking classes at Lewis’ dance studio, purchased a one page ad
23
for her granddaughter in a dance recital brochure that Lewis produced and worked
24
hand in hand with Lewis’ attorney in the family court case to procure testimony from
25
a psychologist claiming that Rehkow was mentally ill and could kill at any time.
4
Case 2:09-cv-01264-ECV
1 2 3 4
16.
Document 1
Filed 06/11/2009
Page 5 of 12
Defendant Freund’s dealings with Lewis went well beyond the scope of
her duties as a City of Phoenix Police Officer. 17.
Additionally, Defendant Freund intentionally and willfully circumvented
City of Phoenix policies regarding the recording of conversations with alleged
5 6 7 8
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3003 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE, SUITE 1800 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3909 (602) 277-3000
LORONA, STEINER, DUCAR & HOROWITZ, LTD.
9 10 11
domestic violence victims.
Further, Defendant Gonzalez also failed to record
conversations with Lewis. 18.
Sometime prior to May 29, 2007, Rehkow hired Plaintiff to perform
private investigative work. 19.
Part of that investigative work included some investigation into Lewis
regarding the family court proceeding.
12 20.
Defendant Freund, for some unknown reason, believed that Plaintiff’s
13 14 15 16
involvement was criminal. Defendant Freund accused Plaintiff of being an accessory in fact to aggravated harassment of Lewis committed by Rehkow. 21.
In an On or about June 12, 2007, the 420th Grand Jury in Maricopa
17
County, Arizona, handed down an indictment charging Plantiff with one count of
18
Stalking, a class 3 felony. The State alleged that between the dates of December 18,
19
2006 and May 30, 3007, Plaintiff acted as an accomplice to Rehkow and engaged in a
20 course of conduct which caused Lewis to fear her own death or the death of an 21 22 23
immediate family member. 22.
At the time that the events allegedly occurred, Plaintiff was gainfully
24
employed as licensed private investigator after having retired from his position as an
25
Adult Probation Officer with the Maricopa County Adult Probation Department.
5
Case 2:09-cv-01264-ECV
1 2 3 4
23.
Document 1
Filed 06/11/2009
Page 6 of 12
Although the State alleged that Plaintiff assisted Rehkow in harassing
Lewis, Rehkow’s charges stemmed from events alleged to have occurred over four (4) years before Plaintiff started working for Rehkow. 24.
To secure the grand jury indictment against Plaintiff, Detective Sampson
5 6 7 8
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3003 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE, SUITE 1800 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3909 (602) 277-3000
LORONA, STEINER, DUCAR & HOROWITZ, LTD.
9 10 11
appeared and testified before the grand jury. Detective Sampson testified consistently with the reports prepared and submitted by Defendant Freund. 25.
During the course of the criminal proceedings it was determined that the
summaries and statements included in the reports prepared by Defendant Freund were factually inaccurate and contained false and fraudulent statements and evidence. 26.
Additionally,
Defendant
Freund’s
reports
intentionally
omitted
12 exculpatory evidence. 13 14
27.
Upon information and belief, Defendant Freund’s supervisors, as each
15
named as Defendants herein, were aware of her actions and helped perpetuate the
16
introduction of false evidence and the malicious prosecution of Plaintiff.
17 18 19
28.
In a Minute Entry dated August, 5, 2008, the trial court issued a ruling
that as a matter of fact and law that the facts as presented to the grand Jury were false and were not sufficient to establish probable cause. The State agreed with the Court
20 as it did not seek to obtain a second indictment or other probable cause determination 21 22 23 24 25
against Plaintiff. 29.
On or about December 18, 2008, the charges against Plaintiff were
dismissed with prejudice. 30.
Plaintiff requests a jury trial in this matter.
6
Case 2:09-cv-01264-ECV
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Document 1
Filed 06/11/2009
Page 7 of 12
COUNT ONE VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983-MALICIOUS PROSECUTION 31.
Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation above as it fully set
forth herein. 32.
The Defendants are individuals, entities and municipalities acting under
color of state law. 33.
The Defendants, individually and collectively, contributed to the
8 presentation of false and fraudulent evidence and testimony to the Maricopa County
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3003 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE, SUITE 1800 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3909 (602) 277-3000
LORONA, STEINER, DUCAR & HOROWITZ, LTD.
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Grand Jury, on or about June 12, 2007. 34.
The presentation of said evidence led to the issuance of a Grand Jury
Indictment against Mr. Scotti. 35.
By participating in the investigation and presentation of false evidence
to the Grand Jury, the Defendants deprived Mr. Scotti of his substantive due process rights to a fair and impartial presentation of evidence for determination of probable
16 cause and violations of Plaintiffs First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. 17 18
36.
In doing so, the Defendants participated and assisted in the prosecution
19
of Mr. Scotti with malice and without probable cause and in doing so deprived Mr.
20
Scotti of his constitutional rights.
21 22 23
37.
As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Mr. Scotti incurred financial,
economic, emotional and other damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 38.
The actions of the Defendants were entered into with an evil mind and
24 25
therefore, punitive damages are appropriate.
7
Case 2:09-cv-01264-ECV
2
4 5 6 7
Filed 06/11/2009
Page 8 of 12
COUNT TWO MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
1
3
Document 1
39.
The Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation set forth above as if
more fully set forth herein. 40.
The Defendants, by conduct, participation or knowledge, initiated or
help institute a criminal prosecution against Mr. Scotti. 41.
The criminal prosecution terminated in Mr. Scotti’s favor when the
8 Court decided as a matter of fact and law that the facts as presented were not sufficient
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3003 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE, SUITE 1800 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3909 (602) 277-3000
LORONA, STEINER, DUCAR & HOROWITZ, LTD.
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
to establish probable cause. Obviously, the State agreed with the Court as it did not seek to obtain an indictment or other probable cause determination against Mr. Scotti. 42.
On or about December 18, 2008, the charges against Mr. Scotti were
dismissed with prejudice. 43.
Each of the Defendants contributed to the investigation and prosecution
of Mr. Scotti in some way.
16 44.
Each and every Defendant’s actions were with malice and lacked
17 18 19 20
probable cause. 45.
As a result of Defendants’ actions, Mr. Scotti suffered significant
financial, emotional, and personal injuries.
21
COUNT THREE GROSS NEGLIGENCE
22 23 24
46.
The plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation set forth above as
more fully set forth herein.
25
8
Case 2:09-cv-01264-ECV
1 2 3 4
47.
Document 1
Filed 06/11/2009
Page 9 of 12
The Defendants, as entities and individuals charged with enforcement of
the laws and investigations of criminal acts, owed a duty to Mr. Scotti to conduct their investigation into allegations of stalking committed by Mr. Scotti pursuant to the applicable standard of care for law enforcement officers.
5 6
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3003 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE, SUITE 1800 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3909 (602) 277-3000
LORONA, STEINER, DUCAR & HOROWITZ, LTD.
7
48.
Defendants conduct deviated from the duty and standard of care required
of police officers by relying on false or fraudulent information to secure a grand jury
8
indictment against Mr. Scotti and the subsequent use of that information as a basis for
9
criminal prosecution of Mr. Scotti.
10 11
49.
As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Mr. Scotti has been incurred
damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
12 13 14 15
COUNT FOUR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 50.
Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation set forth above as if fully
set forth herein.
16 51.
Defendants intentional use of false and fraudulent evidence and
17 18
testimony to obtain a Grand Jury Indictment against Mr. Scotti rises to the level of
19
“extreme and outrageous” conduct as to warrant recovery on the basis of intentional
20
infliction of emotional distress.
21 22 23
52.
Defendants knew or had reason to know that the evidence presented to
the grand jury was fraudulent yet, despite this fact, they intentionally and recklessly used the false evidence to obtain a Grand Jury Indictment.
24 25
9
Case 2:09-cv-01264-ECV
1 2
53.
Filed 06/11/2009
Page 10 of 12
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants actions, Mr. Scotti
suffered severe emotional distress.
3
COUNT FIVE NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
4 5
54.
6
set forth herein.
7
Document 1
55.
Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation set forth above as if fully
Defendants collection and use of false and fraudulent evidence and
8 testimony to obtain a Grand Jury Indictment against Mr. Scotti subjected Mr. Scotti to
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3003 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE, SUITE 1800 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3909 (602) 277-3000
LORONA, STEINER, DUCAR & HOROWITZ, LTD.
9 10 11
an unreasonable risk of harm. 56.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Mr. Scotti
12
suffered severe emotional and physical distress. Further, Mr. Scotti continues to
13
experience mental pain and suffering.
14
COUNT SIX DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER
15 16
57.
17
set forth herein.
18
58.
19
Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation set forth above as if fully
Defendants published and rendered various written statements
concerning Mr. Scotti, his propensity to commit a stalking offense, veracity and
20 professional and personal character. 21 22
59.
Material defamatory of the personal, professional, business reputation
23
and capabilities of Mr. Scotti was and is contained in the police report and grand jury
24
testimony. Such statements were contrary to the truth and contrary to the information
25
10
Case 2:09-cv-01264-ECV
Document 1
Filed 06/11/2009
Page 11 of 12
1
available to Defendants prior to submitting and publishing the police report and
2
testimony before the grand jury.
3 4
60.
The false, defamatory, and misleading statements made by and on behalf
of Defendants concerning the reputation and personal character of Mr. Scotti, were
5 6 7
made maliciously and with intent to injure and damage Mr. Scotti. The statements concerning Mr. Scotti are wholly false and were not protected expressions of opinion. 61.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3003 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE, SUITE 1800 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3909 (602) 277-3000
LORONA, STEINER, DUCAR & HOROWITZ, LTD.
8
As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, Mr. Scotti
9
has been hampered in his pursuit of employment and has been and will be
10
permanently and irretrievably damaged in his professional career. Mr. Scotti has
11
suffered and will continue to suffer a permanent impairment of his capacity to earn a
12 living.
In the future, Mr. Scotti will be barred and prevented from securing
13 14 15
comparable employment and therefore, will sustain a loss of future income in amounts that cannot presently be determined. Such full amount will be determined at trial. 62.
16
As a further direct and proximate result of the conduct by Defendants,
17
including publication of false, misleading, and defamatory statements, Mr. Scotti has
18
suffered and in the future will continue to suffer serious and irreparable personal
19
inconvenience, mental anguish and distress. Such full amount will be determined at
20 trial. 21 22
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for Judgment against Defendants, and each of
23
them, as follows:
24
A.
25
For compensatory damages, plus special and incidental damages in such
a sum as may be proven at trial;
11
Case 2:09-cv-01264-ECV
Document 1
Filed 06/11/2009
Page 12 of 12
1
B.
For punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial;
2
C.
For costs for the suit;
D.
For attorney’s fees; and
E.
For other such relief as this Court deems just and proper.
3 4 5 6 7
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 11th day of June, 2009. LORONA, STEINER, DUCAR & HOROWITZ, LTD.
8
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3003 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE, SUITE 1800 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3909 (602) 277-3000
LORONA, STEINER, DUCAR & HOROWITZ, LTD.
9 10 11
BY: /s/ Jess A. Lorona Jess A. Lorona, Esq. Gregory E. McClure, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
12
1 2 3
Document 1
Filed 06/11/2009
Page 1 of 12
Lorona, Steiner, Ducar & Horowitz, Ltd. 3003 North Central Avenue, Suite 1800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2909 Telephone: (602) 277-3000 Facsimile: (602) 277-7478
4 5 6 7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3003 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE, SUITE 1800 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3909 (602) 277-3000
9
LORONA, STEINER, DUCAR & HOROWITZ, LTD.
Jess A. Lorona, #009186 Gregory E. McClure, #022587 Attorneys for Plaintiff
Glen R. Scotti, an individual, Plaintiff,
10 11
vs.
12
City of Phoenix, a political subdivision of the State of Arizona; City of Phoenix Police Department, an Arizona law enforcement agency; Jack Harris and Jane Doe Harris, husband and wife; Mary Freund and John Doe Freund, husband and wife; Christina Gonzalez and John Doe Gonzalez, husband and wife; David Sampson and Jane Doe Sampson, husband and wife; Sandra Renteria and John Doe Renteria, husband and wife.
13 14 15 16 17 18
Case No. CV09-1264-PHX COMPLAINT
19 Defendants. 20 21 22
Plaintiff, Glen R. Scotti, by and through his counsel undersigned, hereby alleges as follows for his Complaint against Defendants:
23 24 25
PARTIES AND JURISDICTION 1.
Plaintiff, Glen R. Scotti (“Mr. Scotti”), is, at all times relevant, a resident
of Maricopa County, Arizona. 1
Case 2:09-cv-01264-ECV
1 2 3 4
2.
Document 1
Filed 06/11/2009
Page 2 of 12
Defendant, City of Phoenix, is, at all times relevant, a political
subdivision of the State of Arizona, located in Maricopa County, Arizona. 3.
Defendant City of Phoenix Police Department is at all times relevant to
this Complaint, an Arizona law enforcement agency, located in Maricopa County,
5 6
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3003 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE, SUITE 1800 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3909 (602) 277-3000
LORONA, STEINER, DUCAR & HOROWITZ, LTD.
7
Arizona. 4.
Defendants, Jack Harris (“Chief Harris”) and Jane Doe Harris, are, at all
8
times relevant, husband and wife residing in Maricopa County, Arizona. Defendant
9
Jack Harris holds the position of Chief of Police in and for the City of Phoenix. All
10 11
actions taken by Defendant Jack Harris were on behalf of the marital community. 5.
Defendants, Mary Freund (“Detective Freund”) and John Doe Freund,
12 are, at all times relevant, husband and wife residing in Maricopa County, Arizona. At 13 14
all times relevant, Defendant Mary Freund held the position of detective in and for the
15
City of Phoenix Police Department in the Family Investigations Bureau. All actions
16
taken by Defendant Mary Freund were on behalf of the marital community.
17 18 19
6.
Defendants, Christina Gonzalez (“Lieutenant Gonzalez”) and John Doe
Gonzalez, are, at all times relevant, husband and wife residing in Maricopa County, Arizona. At all times relevant, Defendant Christina Gonzalez held the position of
20 Detective in and for the City of Phoenix Police Department in the Family 21 22
Investigations Bureau. Upon information and belief, Defendant Christina Gonzalez
23
has since been promoted to Lieutenant. All actions taken by Defendant Christina
24
Gonzalez were on behalf of the marital community.
25
2
Case 2:09-cv-01264-ECV
1 2 3 4
7.
Document 1
Filed 06/11/2009
Page 3 of 12
Defendants, David Sampson (“Detective Sampson”) and Jane Doe
Sampson, are, at all times relevant, husband and wife residing in Maricopa County, Arizona. At all times relevant, Defendant David Sampson held the position of Detective in and for the City of Phoenix Police Department in the Family
5 6 7
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3003 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE, SUITE 1800 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3909 (602) 277-3000
LORONA, STEINER, DUCAR & HOROWITZ, LTD.
8
Investigations Bureau. All actions taken by Defendant David Sampson were on behalf of the marital community. 8.
Defendants, Sandra Renteria (“Commander Renteria”) and John Doe
9
Renteria, are, at all times relevant, husband and wife residing in Maricopa County,
10
Arizona. At all times relevant, Defendant Sandra Renteria held the position of
11
Lieutenant in and for the City of Phoenix Police Department in the Family
12 Investigations Bureau. Upon information and belief, Defendant Sandra Renteria has 13 14 15
since been promoted to Commander. All actions taken by Defendant Sandra Renteria were on behalf of the marital community.
16
9.
Subject matter jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
17
10.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, venue is proper in this Court.
18 19
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 11.
Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation set forth above as if fully
20 set forth herein. 21 22
12.
On or about May 29, 2007, at approximately 6:57 a.m., nearly a dozen
23
Phoenix Police Officers stormed the home of Plaintiff. Plaintiff is a former law
24
enforcement officer with no prior history of criminal activity.
25
3
Officers used a
Case 2:09-cv-01264-ECV
Document 1
Filed 06/11/2009
Page 4 of 12
1
battering ram to break down the front door and exerted excessive and unreasonable
2
force on the person of Plaintiff.
3 4
13.
The search warrant executed on the morning of May 29, 2007 was
willfully and intentionally procured through the use of false and fabricated evidence
5 6
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3003 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE, SUITE 1800 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3909 (602) 277-3000
LORONA, STEINER, DUCAR & HOROWITZ, LTD.
7
by Defendants Freund and Gonzalez. 14.
Defendant Freund had befriended an alleged victim in a domestic
8
violence investigation named Kimberly Lewis (“Lewis”). Defendant Freund first met
9
Lewis in approximately March of 2002. At that time, Lewis was embroiled in a
10 11
divorce proceeding with her former husband Andrew Rehkow (“Rehkow”).
Upon
information and belief, throughout the course of the dissolution proceedings, Lewis
12 made a multitude of false accusations of alleged criminal activity by Rehkow. These 13 14
accusations led to an ongoing criminal investigation against Rehkow that began in
15
March of 2002 and continued for a number of years. Throughout that time period,
16
Defendant Freund remained the lead investigator for the Rehkow investigation.
17 18 19
15.
From March of 2002 through June of 2007, Defendant Freund served as
a personal confidant and friend to Lewis while purportedly investigating Rehkow for criminal violations.
Upon information and belief, Defendant Freund became
20 personally and emotionally involved in with Lewis.
Defendant Freund’s
21 22
granddaughter began taking classes at Lewis’ dance studio, purchased a one page ad
23
for her granddaughter in a dance recital brochure that Lewis produced and worked
24
hand in hand with Lewis’ attorney in the family court case to procure testimony from
25
a psychologist claiming that Rehkow was mentally ill and could kill at any time.
4
Case 2:09-cv-01264-ECV
1 2 3 4
16.
Document 1
Filed 06/11/2009
Page 5 of 12
Defendant Freund’s dealings with Lewis went well beyond the scope of
her duties as a City of Phoenix Police Officer. 17.
Additionally, Defendant Freund intentionally and willfully circumvented
City of Phoenix policies regarding the recording of conversations with alleged
5 6 7 8
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3003 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE, SUITE 1800 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3909 (602) 277-3000
LORONA, STEINER, DUCAR & HOROWITZ, LTD.
9 10 11
domestic violence victims.
Further, Defendant Gonzalez also failed to record
conversations with Lewis. 18.
Sometime prior to May 29, 2007, Rehkow hired Plaintiff to perform
private investigative work. 19.
Part of that investigative work included some investigation into Lewis
regarding the family court proceeding.
12 20.
Defendant Freund, for some unknown reason, believed that Plaintiff’s
13 14 15 16
involvement was criminal. Defendant Freund accused Plaintiff of being an accessory in fact to aggravated harassment of Lewis committed by Rehkow. 21.
In an On or about June 12, 2007, the 420th Grand Jury in Maricopa
17
County, Arizona, handed down an indictment charging Plantiff with one count of
18
Stalking, a class 3 felony. The State alleged that between the dates of December 18,
19
2006 and May 30, 3007, Plaintiff acted as an accomplice to Rehkow and engaged in a
20 course of conduct which caused Lewis to fear her own death or the death of an 21 22 23
immediate family member. 22.
At the time that the events allegedly occurred, Plaintiff was gainfully
24
employed as licensed private investigator after having retired from his position as an
25
Adult Probation Officer with the Maricopa County Adult Probation Department.
5
Case 2:09-cv-01264-ECV
1 2 3 4
23.
Document 1
Filed 06/11/2009
Page 6 of 12
Although the State alleged that Plaintiff assisted Rehkow in harassing
Lewis, Rehkow’s charges stemmed from events alleged to have occurred over four (4) years before Plaintiff started working for Rehkow. 24.
To secure the grand jury indictment against Plaintiff, Detective Sampson
5 6 7 8
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3003 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE, SUITE 1800 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3909 (602) 277-3000
LORONA, STEINER, DUCAR & HOROWITZ, LTD.
9 10 11
appeared and testified before the grand jury. Detective Sampson testified consistently with the reports prepared and submitted by Defendant Freund. 25.
During the course of the criminal proceedings it was determined that the
summaries and statements included in the reports prepared by Defendant Freund were factually inaccurate and contained false and fraudulent statements and evidence. 26.
Additionally,
Defendant
Freund’s
reports
intentionally
omitted
12 exculpatory evidence. 13 14
27.
Upon information and belief, Defendant Freund’s supervisors, as each
15
named as Defendants herein, were aware of her actions and helped perpetuate the
16
introduction of false evidence and the malicious prosecution of Plaintiff.
17 18 19
28.
In a Minute Entry dated August, 5, 2008, the trial court issued a ruling
that as a matter of fact and law that the facts as presented to the grand Jury were false and were not sufficient to establish probable cause. The State agreed with the Court
20 as it did not seek to obtain a second indictment or other probable cause determination 21 22 23 24 25
against Plaintiff. 29.
On or about December 18, 2008, the charges against Plaintiff were
dismissed with prejudice. 30.
Plaintiff requests a jury trial in this matter.
6
Case 2:09-cv-01264-ECV
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Document 1
Filed 06/11/2009
Page 7 of 12
COUNT ONE VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983-MALICIOUS PROSECUTION 31.
Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation above as it fully set
forth herein. 32.
The Defendants are individuals, entities and municipalities acting under
color of state law. 33.
The Defendants, individually and collectively, contributed to the
8 presentation of false and fraudulent evidence and testimony to the Maricopa County
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3003 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE, SUITE 1800 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3909 (602) 277-3000
LORONA, STEINER, DUCAR & HOROWITZ, LTD.
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Grand Jury, on or about June 12, 2007. 34.
The presentation of said evidence led to the issuance of a Grand Jury
Indictment against Mr. Scotti. 35.
By participating in the investigation and presentation of false evidence
to the Grand Jury, the Defendants deprived Mr. Scotti of his substantive due process rights to a fair and impartial presentation of evidence for determination of probable
16 cause and violations of Plaintiffs First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. 17 18
36.
In doing so, the Defendants participated and assisted in the prosecution
19
of Mr. Scotti with malice and without probable cause and in doing so deprived Mr.
20
Scotti of his constitutional rights.
21 22 23
37.
As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Mr. Scotti incurred financial,
economic, emotional and other damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 38.
The actions of the Defendants were entered into with an evil mind and
24 25
therefore, punitive damages are appropriate.
7
Case 2:09-cv-01264-ECV
2
4 5 6 7
Filed 06/11/2009
Page 8 of 12
COUNT TWO MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
1
3
Document 1
39.
The Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation set forth above as if
more fully set forth herein. 40.
The Defendants, by conduct, participation or knowledge, initiated or
help institute a criminal prosecution against Mr. Scotti. 41.
The criminal prosecution terminated in Mr. Scotti’s favor when the
8 Court decided as a matter of fact and law that the facts as presented were not sufficient
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3003 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE, SUITE 1800 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3909 (602) 277-3000
LORONA, STEINER, DUCAR & HOROWITZ, LTD.
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
to establish probable cause. Obviously, the State agreed with the Court as it did not seek to obtain an indictment or other probable cause determination against Mr. Scotti. 42.
On or about December 18, 2008, the charges against Mr. Scotti were
dismissed with prejudice. 43.
Each of the Defendants contributed to the investigation and prosecution
of Mr. Scotti in some way.
16 44.
Each and every Defendant’s actions were with malice and lacked
17 18 19 20
probable cause. 45.
As a result of Defendants’ actions, Mr. Scotti suffered significant
financial, emotional, and personal injuries.
21
COUNT THREE GROSS NEGLIGENCE
22 23 24
46.
The plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation set forth above as
more fully set forth herein.
25
8
Case 2:09-cv-01264-ECV
1 2 3 4
47.
Document 1
Filed 06/11/2009
Page 9 of 12
The Defendants, as entities and individuals charged with enforcement of
the laws and investigations of criminal acts, owed a duty to Mr. Scotti to conduct their investigation into allegations of stalking committed by Mr. Scotti pursuant to the applicable standard of care for law enforcement officers.
5 6
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3003 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE, SUITE 1800 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3909 (602) 277-3000
LORONA, STEINER, DUCAR & HOROWITZ, LTD.
7
48.
Defendants conduct deviated from the duty and standard of care required
of police officers by relying on false or fraudulent information to secure a grand jury
8
indictment against Mr. Scotti and the subsequent use of that information as a basis for
9
criminal prosecution of Mr. Scotti.
10 11
49.
As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Mr. Scotti has been incurred
damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
12 13 14 15
COUNT FOUR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 50.
Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation set forth above as if fully
set forth herein.
16 51.
Defendants intentional use of false and fraudulent evidence and
17 18
testimony to obtain a Grand Jury Indictment against Mr. Scotti rises to the level of
19
“extreme and outrageous” conduct as to warrant recovery on the basis of intentional
20
infliction of emotional distress.
21 22 23
52.
Defendants knew or had reason to know that the evidence presented to
the grand jury was fraudulent yet, despite this fact, they intentionally and recklessly used the false evidence to obtain a Grand Jury Indictment.
24 25
9
Case 2:09-cv-01264-ECV
1 2
53.
Filed 06/11/2009
Page 10 of 12
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants actions, Mr. Scotti
suffered severe emotional distress.
3
COUNT FIVE NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
4 5
54.
6
set forth herein.
7
Document 1
55.
Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation set forth above as if fully
Defendants collection and use of false and fraudulent evidence and
8 testimony to obtain a Grand Jury Indictment against Mr. Scotti subjected Mr. Scotti to
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3003 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE, SUITE 1800 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3909 (602) 277-3000
LORONA, STEINER, DUCAR & HOROWITZ, LTD.
9 10 11
an unreasonable risk of harm. 56.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Mr. Scotti
12
suffered severe emotional and physical distress. Further, Mr. Scotti continues to
13
experience mental pain and suffering.
14
COUNT SIX DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER
15 16
57.
17
set forth herein.
18
58.
19
Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation set forth above as if fully
Defendants published and rendered various written statements
concerning Mr. Scotti, his propensity to commit a stalking offense, veracity and
20 professional and personal character. 21 22
59.
Material defamatory of the personal, professional, business reputation
23
and capabilities of Mr. Scotti was and is contained in the police report and grand jury
24
testimony. Such statements were contrary to the truth and contrary to the information
25
10
Case 2:09-cv-01264-ECV
Document 1
Filed 06/11/2009
Page 11 of 12
1
available to Defendants prior to submitting and publishing the police report and
2
testimony before the grand jury.
3 4
60.
The false, defamatory, and misleading statements made by and on behalf
of Defendants concerning the reputation and personal character of Mr. Scotti, were
5 6 7
made maliciously and with intent to injure and damage Mr. Scotti. The statements concerning Mr. Scotti are wholly false and were not protected expressions of opinion. 61.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3003 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE, SUITE 1800 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3909 (602) 277-3000
LORONA, STEINER, DUCAR & HOROWITZ, LTD.
8
As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, Mr. Scotti
9
has been hampered in his pursuit of employment and has been and will be
10
permanently and irretrievably damaged in his professional career. Mr. Scotti has
11
suffered and will continue to suffer a permanent impairment of his capacity to earn a
12 living.
In the future, Mr. Scotti will be barred and prevented from securing
13 14 15
comparable employment and therefore, will sustain a loss of future income in amounts that cannot presently be determined. Such full amount will be determined at trial. 62.
16
As a further direct and proximate result of the conduct by Defendants,
17
including publication of false, misleading, and defamatory statements, Mr. Scotti has
18
suffered and in the future will continue to suffer serious and irreparable personal
19
inconvenience, mental anguish and distress. Such full amount will be determined at
20 trial. 21 22
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for Judgment against Defendants, and each of
23
them, as follows:
24
A.
25
For compensatory damages, plus special and incidental damages in such
a sum as may be proven at trial;
11
Case 2:09-cv-01264-ECV
Document 1
Filed 06/11/2009
Page 12 of 12
1
B.
For punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial;
2
C.
For costs for the suit;
D.
For attorney’s fees; and
E.
For other such relief as this Court deems just and proper.
3 4 5 6 7
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 11th day of June, 2009. LORONA, STEINER, DUCAR & HOROWITZ, LTD.
8
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3003 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE, SUITE 1800 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3909 (602) 277-3000
LORONA, STEINER, DUCAR & HOROWITZ, LTD.
9 10 11
BY: /s/ Jess A. Lorona Jess A. Lorona, Esq. Gregory E. McClure, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
12
Related Documents
Complaint (filed Copy)
May 2020 16
Morris Complaint Filed
June 2020 8
Filed Summons And Complaint
December 2019 33
Complaint (as Filed)
May 2020 18
Complaint Filed With Ncdenr
August 2019 30