cindy hahn complaint

- 1 - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

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

26

27

28

GE

RA

GO

S &

GE

RA

GO

S, A

PC

H

IST

OR

IC E

NG

INE

CO

. NO

. 28

6

44

So

uth

Fig

ue

ro

a S

tre

et

Lo

s A

ng

ele

s, C

al

ifo

rn

ia 9

00

17

-34

11

GERAGOS & GERAGOS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION LAWYERS HISTORIC ENGINE CO. NO. 28 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, California 90017-3411 Telephone (213) 625-3900 Facsimile (213) 232-3255 [email protected]

MARK J. GERAGOS SBN 108325 BEN J. MEISELAS SBN 277412 Attorneys for Plaintiffs CINDY HAHN AND BRANDON HAHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CINDY MICHELLE HAHN, individual; BRANDON HAHN, an individual, Plaintiffs, vs. CITY OF CARLSBAD; OFFICER J. KNISLEY; OFFICER KENYATTE VALENTINE; OFFICER KARCHES; CORPORAL GALANOS; OFFICER SEAPKER; and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants.

Case No. 3:15-CV-02007-DMS-BGS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES:

1. VIOLATION OF CIVIL

RIGHTS (42 USC §1983); 2. VIOLATION OF CIVIL

RIGHTS - MONELL; 3. VIOLATION OF CIVIL CODE

§52.1; 4. NEGLIGENCE; 5. BATTERY 6. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1. Plaintiffs Cindy Hahn and her husband Brandon Hahn are compelled to

bring this First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) because the Defendants, the City of

Carlsbad and the Defendant Police Officers, argue that the allegations pled against

them previously in the Original Complaint were uncertain and vague. This, despite

the fact that Defendants have previously been confronted with video evidence of the

Case 3:15-cv-02007-DMS-BGS Document 6 Filed 10/02/15 of 15


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

26

27

28

GE

RA

GO

S &

GE

RA

GO

S, A

PC

H

IST

OR

IC E

NG

INE

CO

. NO

. 28

6

44

So

uth

Fig

ue

ro

a S

tre

et

Lo

s A

ng

ele

s, C

al

ifo

rn

ia 9

00

17

-34

11

Defendant Police Officers brutally beating and attacking the unarmed and defenseless

40 year old Ms. Hahn in front of her 11 year old and 7 year old children, as they were

leaving the birthday party of a friend. Since Defendants are apparently incapable of

recognizing their videotaped misconduct, Plaintiff provides additional specificity in

response to Defendants’ feigned ignorance:

2. The facts and conduct giving rise to the FAC occurred on July 31, 2013.

3. The senseless act of egregious police brutality and unlawful conduct by

Defendants was in retaliation for Ms. Hahn calling a civilian police hotline moments

before she was beat, to complain that a Carlsbad Police Officer, Officer Kenyatte

Valentine appeared mentally unstable.

4. Ms. Hahn, the daughter of a reserve police officer herself, asked Officer

Valentine why he was standing in front of a vehicle and doing nothing while the

vehicle’s alarm sounded. Officer Valentine responded: “mind your f******

business.” Ms. Hahn complained of this conduct to the nonemergency police hotline

since she felt harassed and intimidated by Officer Valentine. Attached hereto as

Exhibit “A” is true and correct copy of the iPhone snapshot of the phone call made

by Ms. Hahn to the nonemergency Carlsbad Police hotline.

5. After Ms. Hahn complained, and she got in the car to drive home, Officer

Valentine followed Ms. Hahn in his police vehicle and immediately pulled her over on

the pretextual grounds that the driver of the vehicle had a seatbelt violation (the driver

was not cited for any purpose). Officer Valentine had Ms. Hahn exit the vehicle and

began attacking her in front of her children who were in the back seat of the car.

While she was being beaten and pummeled, Ms. Hahn was crying out for help.

6. Shortly thereafter, another Carlsbad patrol vehicle arrived at a high and

reckless rate of speed, traveling in reverse. Rather than help Ms. Hahn or extract

Officer Valentine who was straddling on top of Ms. Hahn, Carlsbad Police Officer

Knisley got out of the vehicle and escalated the situation by joining in the attack on

Ms. Hahn. Officer Knisley began punching Ms. Hahn with a closed fist to the face



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

26

27

28

GE

RA

GO

S &

GE

RA

GO

S, A

PC

H

IST

OR

IC E

NG

INE

CO

. NO

. 28

6

44

So

uth

Fig

ue

ro

a S

tre

et

Lo

s A

ng

ele

s, C

al

ifo

rn

ia 9

00

17

-34

11

until she was limp on the floor. Ms. Hahn’s clothes were almost ripped off.

7. Ms. Hahn was transported to the emergency room where she was

diagnosed with head and brain contusions and subsequently diagnosed with a

concussion based on the Defendant Police Officer’s violence. Ms. Hahn suffers

permanent memory loss and brain trauma as well as other physical and emotional

injuries from the beating.

8. To cover up their malicious and wanton conduct – not realizing the brutal

attack on Ms. Hahn was caught on tape – the Defendant City of Carlsbad and the

Defendant Police Officers fabricated police reports which led to Ms. Hahn being

charged with felony violations of Penal Code Section 69 – Felony Resisting Arrest,

as well as Penal Code Section 243(c) (2) Felony Battery on a Peace Officer with

Injury. Attached hereto as Exhibit “B” is a true and correct copy of the Felony

Criminal Complaint.

9. The false and fraudulently prepared and submitted police reports – with

the support and assistance of the Sergeant of the Carlsbad Police Department– portray

Ms. Hahn as a dangerous individual engaging in criminal conduct in the presence of

police officers fearing for their safety. The video of the incident flatly contradicted

these accounts

10. As Ms. Hahn suffered through her physical and emotional injuries from

the attack, her damages were compounded as she was compelled to endure a sordid

ordeal for her freedom as the Defendant Police Officer attackers lied under oath in the

criminal proceeding about what actually took place. The charges pending against Ms.

Hahn exposed her to State prison and a strike conviction. The criminal case against

Ms. Hahn lasted approximately 2 years.

11. All criminal counts against Ms. Hahn were dismissed when the District

Attorney’s Office was confronted with video evidence showing that the Police

Officers had lied in their reports and testimony. The video shows the police brutally

beating Ms. Hahn. The felony criminal case against Ms. Hahn was dismissed on July



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

26

27

28

GE

RA

GO

S &

GE

RA

GO

S, A

PC

H

IST

OR

IC E

NG

INE

CO

. NO

. 28

6

44

So

uth

Fig

ue

ro

a S

tre

et

Lo

s A

ng

ele

s, C

al

ifo

rn

ia 9

00

17

-34

11

19, 2015.

12. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 945.3, Ms. Hahn’s civil

claims for damages against the Defendants were stayed and tolled during the period in

which she was maliciously prosecuted by Defendants. This tolling period was from

July 31, 2013 through July 19, 2015.

13. The video of the brutal assault on Ms. Hahn can be viewed at the

following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLeGnJzRO5U

THE PARTIES

14. Plaintiff Cindy Hahn, at all relevant times, was a resident of Los Angeles

County, California.

15. Plaintiff Brandon Hahn, at all relevant times, was a resident of Los

Angeles County, California.

16. At all times herein mentioned, the City of Carlsbad (the “City”), was a

governmental entity organized and existing under the laws of the State of California.

17. At all times herein mentioned, J. Knisley (“Knisley”) was a law

enforcement officer employed by the City of Carlsbad Police Department and acting

in the course and scope of his employment and acting under the color of law.

18. At all times herein mentioned, Kenyatte Valentine (“Valentine”) was a

law enforcement officer employed by the City of Carlsbad Police Department and

acting in the course and scope of his employment and acting under the color of law.

19. At all times herein mentioned, Officer Karches (“Karches”) was a law



20. At all times herein mentioned, Corporal Galanos (“Galanos”) was a law



21. At all times herein mentioned, Officer Seapker (“Seapker”) was a law




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

26

27

28

GE

RA

GO

S &

GE

RA

GO

S, A

PC

H

IST

OR

IC E

NG

INE

CO

. NO

. 28

6

44

So

uth

Fig

ue

ro

a S

tre

et

Lo

s A

ng

ele

s, C

al

ifo

rn

ia 9

00

17

-34

11


22. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities of the Defendants

named herein as DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and therefore sues said Defendants by

such fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint to

allege the true names and capacities of said Defendants when the same are

ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the

aforesaid fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the

happenings and occurrences hereinafter alleged, and the Plaintiff’s damages and

injuries as herein alleged were caused by the conduct of said Defendants.

23. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Does 1 through 50 were law

enforcement officers acting under color of law. It is further alleged that Does 1

through 50 were acting in the course and scope of their employment at all relevant

times.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

24. This Court has jurisdiction over the entire action by virtue of the fact that

this is a civil action wherein the matter in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs,

exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of the Court. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this

Court by Section 1983, Title 42, United States Code. Concurrent jurisdiction was

granted to this court under Williams vs. Horvath (1976) 16 Cal.3d 834, 837. Also, this

Court has jurisdiction to award damages pursuant to Article VI, Section 10 of the

California Constitution.

25. On September 10, 2015, Defendants removed this matter to the United

States District Court, Southern District of California on the grounds of Federal

Question jurisdiction.

26. On January 13, 2014 Plaintiffs Cindy Hahn and Brandon Hahn timely

submitted claims under California Government Code Section 910 within 6 months



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

26

27

28

GE

RA

GO

S &

GE

RA

GO

S, A

PC

H

IST

OR

IC E

NG

INE

CO

. NO

. 28

6

44

So

uth

Fig

ue

ro

a S

tre

et

Lo

s A

ng

ele

s, C

al

ifo

rn

ia 9

00

17

-34

11

from the date of incident of July 31, 2013.1

27. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 945.3, the claims by

Ms. Hahn were tolled during the period she was being maliciously criminally

prosecuted which concluded on July 19, 2015 when the District Attorney dismissed all

criminal counts.

28. The State law claims of Brandon Hahn for loss of consortium have not

expired based on, among the reasons, the fact that the injury sustained was continuing

through the malicious prosecution period at which point Brandon Hahn’s claim

ripened on July 19, 2015. Further, Defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme and

practice from the date of the incident through the date of dismissal of the felony

criminal charges, by submitting false police reports and giving perjurious testimony in

connection with that act to portray Ms. Hahn as a criminal to the community.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of Civil Rights

(42 U.S.C. § 1983)

Plaintiff against Defendants Knisley, Valentine, Karches, Galanos,

Seapker and Does 1 through 5

29. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every

allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

30. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendants were acting under

color of the law in violating Plaintiff’s constitutional rights as herein alleged under the

Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The Fourth Amendment

is made applicable to the States pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983.

1 Plaintiffs’ minor children John Doe (11 years old at time of incident) and Jane Doe (7 years old) similarly submitted Government Tort Claims pursuant to Section 910 on January 13, 2014. The claims relate to negligent infliction of emotional distress based on witnessing the Defendant Police Officers attack their mother in their presence. As minors, John and Jane Does claims have been tolled on account of their age. John and Jane Doe intend to join this action by and through their proposed guardian ad litem Cindy Hahn subject to the Court’s approval.



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

26

27

28

GE

RA

GO

S &

GE

RA

GO

S, A

PC

H

IST

OR

IC E

NG

INE

CO

. NO

. 28

6

44

So

uth

Fig

ue

ro

a S

tre

et

Lo

s A

ng

ele

s, C

al

ifo

rn

ia 9

00

17

-34

11

31. Defendants Knisley and Valentine deprived Plaintiff of rights, privileges,

and immunities secured to her by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the

United States by, inter alia, subjecting Plaintiff to excessive, unreasonable and

unnecessary force when Plaintiff was struck in the face with a closed fist on multiple

occasions and restrained by way of a knee to Plaintiff’s head and neck.

32. Defendants Knisley, Valentine, Karches, Galanos, Seapker, and Does 1-5

deprived Plaintiff of rights, privileges, and immunities secured to her by the Fourth

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States by, inter alia, subjecting Plaintiff

to an unlawful search and seizure of her person, causing her to be arrested for a

violation of Penal Code 243(c)(1) and Penal Code 148(a)(1), conspiring to deprive

Plaintiff of her constitutionally protected rights, submitting reports with material

omissions, providing falsehoods to secure an arrest and the filing of criminal charges

and continued prosecution which was dismissed.

33. The Defendants and each of them directly participated and/or aided and

abetted in the assault, battery, and excessive force against Ms. Hahn in the presence of

her children and/or engaged in efforts to cover up said conduct by providing false

testimony, preparing or authorizing or approving false police reports, and/or aiding

and abetting in the preparation, authorization or approval of false police reports to

maliciously prosecute Ms. Hahn for felony criminal charges. Each of the named

Defendants is a co-conspirator and/or and aider and abettor in the conduct designed to

physically and emotionally harm Ms. Hahn through the brutal physical assault caught

on videotape and to cover up the conduct of Officer Valentine and Officer Knisley

through the common scheme to submit false reports leading to felony charges against

Ms. Hahn which were ultimately dismissed.

34. Further, Corporal Galanos asserted his presence during the assault on Ms.

Hahn to block and prevent those who were witnessing the assault to help and render

aid. Corporal Galanos attempted to block and conceal the other police officers as they

brutally beat Ms. Hahn.



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

26

27

28

GE

RA

GO

S &

GE

RA

GO

S, A

PC

H

IST

OR

IC E

NG

INE

CO

. NO

. 28

6

44

So

uth

Fig

ue

ro

a S

tre

et

Lo

s A

ng

ele

s, C

al

ifo

rn

ia 9

00

17

-34

11

35. Plaintiff has a constitutional right to be free from an unreasonable seizure

which was made without probable cause and also a seizure which was fraught with

false information to secure the seizure, as alleged herein.

36. Plaintiff has a constitutional right to be free from the use of excessive

force by law enforcement officers. The conduct and actions of Officers Knisley and

Valentine resulted in Plaintiff sustaining injuries to her face, abdomen, chest and

memory, all of which required medical attention. No use of force against her person

was necessary or reasonable. Plaintiff has a constitutional right to be free from

malicious prosecution based on the submission of false reports.

37. Due to the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has

suffered general damages and special damages, all in a sum to be proved at trial.

38. Due to the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has been

required to incur attorneys' fees and will continue to incur attorneys' fees, all to

Plaintiff’s damage in a sum to be proved at trial and recoverable pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§1988.

39. The individual defendants acted with a conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s

rights conferred upon her by Section 1983, Title 42 of the United States Code, the

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and California Civil Code

Section 3333, by intentional causing her injury and arresting her without probably

cause. Defendants, and each of them, had an interest in seeing Plaintiff charged with

criminal conduct to detract from Defendants Knisley and Valentines’ excessive and

unnecessary force. Such conduct constitutes malice, oppression and/or fraud under

California Civil Code Section 3294, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages against the

individual Defendants in an amount suitable to punish and set an example of said

Defendants.



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

26

27

28

GE

RA

GO

S &

GE

RA

GO

S, A

PC

H

IST

OR

IC E

NG

INE

CO

. NO

. 28

6

44

So

uth

Fig

ue

ro

a S

tre

et

Lo

s A

ng

ele

s, C

al

ifo

rn

ia 9

00

17

-34

11

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of Civil Rights- Monell

Plaintiff against the City of Carlsbad and Does 6 through 15

40. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained

in the preceding paragraphs of this complaint, as though fully set forth herein.

41. Defendants, the City of Carlsbad and Does 6 through 15, knowingly, with

gross negligence, and in deliberate indifference to the Constitutional rights of citizens,

maintain and permit an official policy and custom of permitting the occurrence of the

types of wrongs set forth hereinabove and hereafter.

42. Plaintiff has a constitutional interest pursuant to the Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution to be free from an arrest

without probable cause and incarceration and criminal charges based upon the City’s

policies of allowing arrests without probable cause. These policies and customs

include, but are not limited to, the deliberately indifferent training of its law

enforcement officers in making lawful arrests. These policies and customs also

include the express and/or tacit encouragement of arrests without probable cause, the

ratification of police misconduct, and the failure to conduct adequate investigations of

police misconduct such that future violations do not occur.

43. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the City of Carlsbad has an actual

custom or policy of promoting the conduct by the Defendants in this action against

Ms. Hahn. Specifically, the custom and practice is one of retaliation against

individuals who complain against Carlsbad Police Officers. Here, Ms. Hahn called

the official nonemergency hotline for the Carlsbad Police Department to complain

about an officer cursing at her and her children. She was thereafter followed by the

same Police Officer in her car, pulled over for a bogus traffic violation (for which

there were never any citations issued) and then physically assaulted. The way the

assault of Ms. Hahn was carried out evidences a systematic custom and practice for

engaging in this type of unlawful excessive force conduct against individuals by the



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

26

27

28

GE

RA

GO

S &

GE

RA

GO

S, A

PC

H

IST

OR

IC E

NG

INE

CO

. NO

. 28

6

44

So

uth

Fig

ue

ro

a S

tre

et

Lo

s A

ng

ele

s, C

al

ifo

rn

ia 9

00

17

-34

11

Department. Specifically, the video depicts one Police Officer standing in a “guard

position” – as if in formation – to block off the public and attempt to conceal the

“beating” of Ms. Hahn. The assault on Ms. Hahn does not appear random and isolated

among the Carlsbad Police Department as the assaulters are carrying out the assault in

a manner that utilizes official formations and positions to conceal the beating.

Further, evidence of a broader custom and practice of depriving individuals of their

constitutional rights is demonstrated through the fact that there are multiple Defendant

Police Officers who had a part in this assault, either directly through the actual battery

and assault of Ms. Hahn, through the failure to take any action and to attempt to

conceal the beating as it was taking place, and through the processing and/or

approving of false police reports which fabricated facts that led to felony charges

against Ms. Hahn. The false police reports were approved at the Sergeant level with

reckless disregard for the rights of Ms. Hahn. Upon information and belief, the

systemic deconstruction of the truth to cover up for Carlsbad Police Officers who

engage in excessive force is systemic, is engrained in the culture of the Carlsbad

Police Department, and has been carried out in numerous other instances other than

this action.

44. Upon information and belief, the Defendant Officers in this action have

been involved in numerous other acts of misconduct and excessive force in other

instances, in which the Carlsbad Police Department has taken similar efforts to cover-

up and to frame the victim by ginning up false felony charges.

45. Upon information and belief, the custom and practice of permitting and

tolerating unlawful excessive force against the public – as in the case of Ms. Hahn – is

rampant within the Carlsbad Police Department, is learned and taught in officer

training academy, and the conduct is covered up at a systematic and systematic level

at the highest levels of the Carlsbad Police Department by instructing Officers to

prepare false police reports that lead to criminal charges against innocent victims such

as Ms. Hahn.



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

26

27

28

GE

RA

GO

S &

GE

RA

GO

S, A

PC

H

IST

OR

IC E

NG

INE

CO

. NO

. 28

6

44

So

uth

Fig

ue

ro

a S

tre

et

Lo

s A

ng

ele

s, C

al

ifo

rn

ia 9

00

17

-34

11

46. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the customs

and policies were the moving force behind the violations of Plaintiff’s rights. Based

upon the principles set forth in Monell v. New York County Dept. of Social Services,

the County and Does 6 through 15 are liable for all of the injuries sustained by

Plaintiff as set forth above.

47. In acting as alleged herein, the County and Does 6 through 15, and each

of them, caused Plaintiff general and special damages, in an amount to be determined

at the time of trial.

48. Due to the conduct of the County and Does 6 through 15, and each of

them, Plaintiff has been required to incur attorneys' fees and will continue to incur

attorneys' fees, all to Plaintiff’s damage in a sum to be proved at trial and recoverable

pursuant to Title 42, Section 1988 of the United States Code.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of California Civil Code § 52.1 et. seq.

Plaintiff against all Defendants



50. Defendants were acting within the scope of their duties as City of

Carlsbad Police Officers. Pursuant to California Government Code Section §815.2,

the City is liable for the acts, omissions, and conduct of its employees, including

Defendants Knisley, Valentine, Karches, Galanos, Seapker, and Does 1 through 20

herein, whose tortious conduct, was the cause in the damages and injuries to Plaintiff.

51. The conduct of Defendants constituted interference by threats,

intimidation, or coercion, or attempted interference, with the exercise of enjoyment by

Plaintiff’s rights secured by the Constitution of laws of the United States, or secured by

the Constitution or laws of the State of California, including interference with their

right to be secure in her person and free from the use of excessive force under the

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and California Constitution, Article 1, Section 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

26

27

28

GE

RA

GO

S &

GE

RA

GO

S, A

PC

H

IST

OR

IC E

NG

INE

CO

. NO

. 28

6

44

So

uth

Fig

ue

ro

a S

tre

et

Lo

s A

ng

ele

s, C

al

ifo

rn

ia 9

00

17

-34

11

as well as California Civil Code Section 43, and the right of protection from bodily

restraint and harm.

52. As a direct cause of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff’s rights pursuant to

California Civil Code Section 52.1 were violated, causing injuries and damages in an

amount to be proved at the time of trial.

53. Due to the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has been

required to incur attorneys' fees and will continue to incur attorneys' fees. Pursuant to

California Civil Code Section 52.1, Plaintiff is entitled to recover said fees.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

NEGLIGENCE

Plaintiff Against all Defendants



55. Defendants Knisley, Valentine, Karches, Galanos, and Seapker had a

duty of care not to use excessive force on Ms. Hahn to effectuate an arrest.

Defendants Knisley, Valentine, Karches, Galanos, and Seapker breached these duties

when they caused Ms. Hahn to be struck in the face multiple times and restrained by

way of a knee to Plaintiff’s head and neck.

56. As a proximate and direct cause of Defendants Knisley, Valentine,

Karches, Galanos, and Seapker’s breaches, Ms. Hahn was arrested, incarcerated, and

charged with criminal counts.

57. Ms. Hahn sustained injuries and damages in an amount to be proven at

the time of trial.

58. The City is liable for the acts, omissions and conduct of its employees

pursuant to California Government Code Section 815.2.



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

26

27

28

GE

RA

GO

S &

GE

RA

GO

S, A

PC

H

IST

OR

IC E

NG

INE

CO

. NO

. 28

6

44

So

uth

Fig

ue

ro

a S

tre

et

Lo

s A

ng

ele

s, C

al

ifo

rn

ia 9

00

17

-34

11

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

BATTERY

Plaintiff Against Defendants Valentine, Knisley and the City of Carlsbad


in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as though fully set forth herein.

60. Defendant Valentine and Knisley’s use of force on Plaintiff, and

specifically striking Plaintiff in the face with a closed fist, constituted a battery on

Plaintiff as the conduct was unwanted and unnecessary.

61. The City is liable for the acts, omissions and conduct of its employees

pursuant to California Government Code §815.2.

62. As a direct cause of Defendant Knisley’s conduct, Plaintiff sustained

general and special damages, in an amount to be proved at the time of trial.

63. Defendant Knisley’s conduct was done so with conscious disregard of

Plaintiff’s rights and safety, constituting malice, oppression and/or fraud under

California Civil Code Section 3294, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages against

Defendant Knisley in an amount suitable to punish and set an example of said

Defendant.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

LOSS OF CONSORTIUM

Brandon Hahn Against All Defendants

64. Plaintiffs incorporate all proceeding paragraphs herein by reference.

65. As a direct consequence of the injuries sustained by Ms. Hahn because of

the conduct of the police officers described herein, Mr. Hahn has been deprived of the

normal companionship, company, affection, regard, assistance, comfort, relations, and

emotional stability of his wife Ms. Hahn.

66. These physical and emotional consequences of the injuries have

negatively impacted the quality of and caused undue hardship to the marriage

relationship. Mr. Hahn continues to be denied the full enjoyment of his marital



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

26

27

28

GE

RA

GO

S &

GE

RA

GO

S, A

PC

H

IST

OR

IC E

NG

INE

CO

. NO

. 28

6

44

So

uth

Fig

ue

ro

a S

tre

et

Lo

s A

ng

ele

s, C

al

ifo

rn

ia 9

00

17

-34

11

relationship.

67. The date of injury for Mr. Hahn was continuing from the date his wife

was attacked through the malicious prosecution period which ended July 19, 2015.

The injuries to Mr. Hahn were compounded by the submission of fraudulent reports

by the Defendant Police Officers attempting to portray his wife as a violent criminal.

68. Mr. Hahn suffered special and general damages in an amount to be

proven at trial

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs prays for judgment as follows:

1. For general damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;

2. For special damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;

3. For punitive and exemplary damages against the individual defendants

where applicable;

4. For costs of suit;

5. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs as provided by statute; and

6. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

DATED: October 2, 2015 GERAGOS & GERAGOS, APC

By: /s/_MARK J. GERAGOS_______ MARK J. GERAGOS Attorneys for Plaintiffs

CINDY HAHN and BRANDON HAHN



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

26

27

28

GE

RA

GO

S &

GE

RA

GO

S, A

PC

H

IST

OR

IC E

NG

INE

CO

. NO

. 28

6

44

So

uth

Fig

ue

ro

a S

tre

et

Lo

s A

ng

ele

s, C

al

ifo

rn

ia 9

00

17

-34

11

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs Cindy Hahn and Brandon Hahn hereby demand a jury trial.

DATED: October 2, 2015 GERAGOS & GERAGOS, APC

By: /s/_MARK J. GERAGOS_______ MARK J. GERAGOS Attorneys for Plaintiffs

CINDY HAHN and BRANDON HAHN


EXHIBIT A

Case 3:15-cv-02007-DMS-BGS Document 6-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 1 of 2

EXHIBIT B


cindy hahn complaint

Documents