stanley goff (bar no. 289564) law office of stanley goff · 1 day ago · law office of stanley...

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

1

STANLEY GOFF (Bar No. 289564) LAW OFFICE OF STANLEY GOFF 15 Boardman Place Suite 2 San Francisco, CA 94103 Telephone: (415) 571-9570 Email: [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EVERETTE HIGHBAUGH;

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF VALLEJO and VALLEJO DOE POLICE OFFICERS 1-25, and CITY OF OAKLAND and OAKLAND DOE POLICE OFFICERS 1-25 Defendants.

CASE NO.: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. Violation of Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment Rights 42 U.S.C §1983 (Malicious Prosecution); 2. Violation of Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment Rights 42 U.S.C §1983 (Brady Violation); 3. Violation of Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment Rights 42 U.S.C §1983 (False Arrest); 4. Violation of Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment Rights 42 U.S.C §1983 (Excessive Force); DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 3:20-cv-03911-WHA Document 1 Filed 06/14/20 of 12

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

2

Plaintiff, demanding a jury trial, brings this action against Defendants CITY OF

VALLEJO and VALLEJO DOE POLICE OFFICERS 1-25, and CITY OF OAKLAND and

OAKLAND DOE POLICE OFFICERS 1-25, inclusive, for general, consequential,

compensatory, punitive and statutory damages, costs and attorneys’ fees resulting from

defendants’ unconstitutional and tortious conduct, and as grounds therefore allege as follows:

I. PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Everette Highbaugh, was at all times relevant to this complaint, living in the City

of Vallejo.

2. Defendant CITY OF VALLEJO is a legal entity established under the laws of the state of

California with all the powers specified and necessarily implied by the Constitution and laws of

the State of California.

3. Defendant Doe Vallejo Officers 1-25 were employed by the City of Vallejo at the

time of the incident, whose identities and capacities are unknown at this time to the Plaintiff.

These Doe Officers are being sued in their individual capacities.

4. Defendant CITY OF OAKLAND is a legal entity established under the laws of the state of

California with all the powers specified and necessarily implied by the Constitution and laws of

the State of California. OAKLAND is a municipality located within the Northern District of

California.

5. Defendant Doe Oakland Police Officers were employed by the City of Oakland at the

time of the incident, whose identities and capacities are unknown at this time to the Plaintiff.

These Doe Officers are being sued in their individual capacities.

6. All defendants acted under the color of law as it pertains to this 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

3

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988 and the Fourth

Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to Defendants through the

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This Court has jurisdiction over

plaintiffs’ claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a).

8. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Oakland DOE

Officers place of business (Oakland California) is in the Northern District.

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

9. On Nov. 23, 2016, at a Virginia Street apartment in Vallejo California, Kenesha Jackson was

murdered and Brad David who was her lover was critically wounded. The Plaintiff who had been

in a previous relationship with Kenesha Jackson and was the father of her three children was

charged with her murder and the attempted murder of Brad David.

10. Within hours after the shooting, the DOE Vallejo Officers had possession of Brad David’s

cell phone which contained numerous threatening texts messages from a woman named Hope

McKinney who Brad David was dating at the same time he was having an intimate sexual

relationship with Kenesha Jackson.

11. The DOE Vallejo Officers had knowldege that Hope McKinney owned a .38-caliber

handgun and, in apparent fits of jealousy and disgust with Brad David’s behavior, sent numerous

threatening text messages to Brad David just days before the shooting.

12. However, despite this exculpatory evidence that existed that should have ruled the Plaintiff

out as a possible suspect, the DOE Vallejo Officers chose to focus their sites on the Plaintiff

anyway.


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

4

13. The DOE Vallejo Officers then alerted the Oakland Police Department that they were

attempting to locate and arrest the Plaintiff. DOE Oakland police officers located the Plaintiff at his

place of employment in Oakland, placed him in tight fitting handcuffs that caused him pain and

extreme discomfort and left him in the back of a police car for two hours with the tight fitting

handcuffs, without the DOE Oakland Officers making any adjustments to loosen the handcuffs,

despite the Plaintiff giving notice of his pain and discomfort to these Defendants numerous times

and repeatedly requesting for the Oakland Defendants to loosen or adjust his handcuffs.

14. The Plaintiff was subsequently booked into the Solano County Jail, arraigned, pled not

guilty to the charges in early December 2016 and remained in jail without bail until he was

ultimately acquitted of all charges in April 2019.

15. It is alleged and believed that the DOE Vallejo Police Officers, who were investigating the

shooting, were fully aware during the course of their investigation, that Brad David had been

dating another woman named Hope McKinney at the same time he was having an intimate sexual

relationship with Kenesha Jackson and that Hope McKinney owned a .38-caliber handgun and, in

apparent fits of jealousy and disgust with Brad David’s behavior, sent numerous threatening text

messages to him just days before the shooting, which to a reasonable officer conducting a criminal

investigation would have suggested someone else other than the Plaintiff had committed the

crimes.

16. It is alleged that the DOE Vallejo Police Officers who were investigating the shooting, and

who were fully aware of the exculpatory evidence in their possession that would have eliminated

the Plaintiff as a suspect, intentionally did not hand this evidence to the District Attorney’s Office


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

5

with the sole purpose of ensuring that the Plaintiff would be prosecuted and ultimately convicted

for the murder of Kenesha Jackson and the attempted murder of Brad David.

17. It is alleged based on knowledge and belief that the City of Vallejo through its police

department and its employee officers have engaged in the withholding of exculpatory evidence

for the purpose of ensuring individuals are prosecuted without probable cause and convicted for

crimes that they have not committed and that this conduct or practice has been taking place for

the last 10 years and that the City of Vallejo has known of this practice and has ratified this

conduct as an official custom or practice.

18. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the City of Vallejo has sanctioned and ratified its

officers’ actions to engage in the withholding of exculpatory evidence, including in this case;

failed to train and supervise its police officers properly to ensure they conduct proper police

investigations under the color of the law; and acted with deliberate indifference in failing to

properly train its police officers or to adopt policies necessary to prevent such constitutional

violations. These violations are compensable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19. It is alleged that the DOE Oakland Police Officers placed the Plaintiff in tight fitting

handcuffs and intentionally left him in tight fitting handcuffs for over two hours in the back of a

police car, despite having sufficient notice that the handcuffs were causing the Plaintiff extreme

pain and unnecessary suffering.

20. It is alleged based on knowledge and belief that the City of Oakland through its police

department and its employee officers have engaged in the use of tight fitting handcuffs and the

leaving of individuals in the back of police cars for extending periods of time in tight handcuffs,


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

6

and that this conduct or practice has been taking place for the last 10 years and that the City of

Oakland has known of this practice and has ratified this conduct as an official custom or practice.

21. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the City of Oakland has sanctioned and ratified its

officers’ actions to engage in this type of conduct, including in this case; failed to train and

supervise its police officers properly to detain individuals under the color of the law; and acted

with deliberate indifference in failing to properly train its police officers or to adopt policies

necessary to prevent such constitutional violations. These violations are compensable pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983.

IV. CAUSES OF ACTION

FIRST CLAIM

(42 U.S.C. Section 1983 MALICIOUS PROSECUTION)

(Against Defendants DOE Vallejo Police Officers and Monell against Vallejo)

22. The Defendants acting with malice, caused the initiation of false charges to be filed

against the Plaintiff subjecting the Plaintiff to malicious prosecution which deprived him of

his right to be free from unreasonable seizure of his person under the Fourth Amendment to the

United States Constitution.

23. That the Defendants were actively involved in causing the Plaintiff to be prosecuted for

the charges of murder and attempted murder;

24. That the criminal proceedings regarding these charges ended in Plaintiff’s favor when he

was acquitted.


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

7

25. That no reasonable person in the Defendants’ same position would have believed

that there were grounds for causing the Plaintiff to be arrested and prosecuted based on the

above-listed charges because the Defendants had knowledge that the Plaintiff did not commit

any crime on the day in question.

26. That the Defendants acted primarily for a purpose other than to bring the Plaintiff to

justice because they had knowledge that the Plaintiff had not committed the criminal offenses

that the Defendants falsely alleged that he committed and yet arrested the Plaintiff and charged

him with these crimes anyway.

27. That the Plaintiff was harmed based on this malicious prosecution because he was

incarcerated (loss of his liberty) for over two years; and

28. That the Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm.

Monell Claims Against Vallejo












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

8



SECOND CLAIM

(42 U.S.C. Section 1983 BRADY VIOLATION)

(Against Defendants DOE Vallejo Police Officers and Monell against Vallejo)

31. The Defendants acting with malice, intentionally withheld exculpatory evidence from the

Plaintiff regarding his prosecution for murder and attempted murder, thus depriving the Plaintiff

of his right to be due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

32. That this exculpatory evidence (that Brad David had been dating another woman named

Hope McKinney at the same time he was having an intimate sexual relationship with Kenesha

Jackson, that Hope McKinney owned a .38-caliber handgun and, in apparent fits of jealousy and

disgust with Brad David’s behavior, sent numerous threatening text messages to him just days

before the shooting), was highly favorable to exculpation or impeachment in the Plaintiff’s

criminal case.

33. That the Defendants acting with malice, intentionally withheld this exculpatory evidence

from the Plaintiff regarding his prosecution for murder and attempted murder.

34. That the Defendants’ intentional withholding of this exculpatory evidence was highly

prejudicial to the Plaintiff and severely hampered his ability to adequately defend against his

criminal charges.

35. That the Plaintiff was harmed based on this BRADY VIOLATION because he was force

to endure the emotional distress of being prosecuted for crimes that he did not commit and was

incarcerated in the Solano County Jail (loss of his liberty) for over two years; and


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

9

36. That the Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm.














THIRD CLAIM

(Violation of Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment Rights 42 U.S.C §1983 (False Arrest) – As to Defendant DOE Vallejo Officers and DOE Oakland Officers)

39. That Defendants with the assistance of Doe Oakland Police officers (integral participants),

acting under color of law, unlawfully seized the Plaintiff in violation of the Fourth Amendment

by deliberately and intentionally falsely placing him under arrest.

40. That Plaintiff was arrested.

41. Plaintiff had not committed any crime;

42. That based on the evidence the Defendants had within hours of the murder and attempted


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

10

murder (that Brad David had been dating another woman named Hope McKinney at the same time

he was having an intimate sexual relationship with Kenesha Jackson, that Hope McKinney owned

a .38-caliber handgun and, in apparent fits of jealousy and disgust with Brad David’s behavior, sent

numerous threatening text messages to him just days before the shooting), Defendants did not

have probable cause to arrest the Plaintiff.

43. Such actions were in conscious and reckless disregard of the risk of injury and under the

circumstances, there was no objectively reasonable basis for the Defendants’ actions.


44. Defendant City of Vallejo deprived Plaintiff of his rights, privileges, and immunities

secured by the United States Constitution by, among other things, does not train, or inadequately

trains its officers regarding the handling of citizens, so as not to cause these individuals to suffer

being unlawfully arrested.

45. Furthermore, City of Vallejo has engaged in a widespread or longstanding custom and

practice for the last 10 years of allowing its law enforcement employees to engage in the

unlawful arrests of its residents, together with its lack of, or inadequate, training amounts to

deliberate indifference towards the constitutional rights of individuals.

46. As a direct result of City of Vallejo’s actions and inactions, Plaintiff’s constitutional rights

were violated, resulting in Plaintiff’s injuries.

FOURTH CLAIM

(Violation of Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment Rights 42 U.S.C §1983 (Excessive Force) – As

to Oakland DOE Defendants)

47. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the preceding paragraphs of this complaint as

fully set forth herein.


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

11

48. That Defendant DOE Oakland Officers, acting under color of law, used unreasonable and

excessive force by deliberately and intentionally placing the Plaintiff in tight fitting handcuffs,

and leaving him in the tight fitting handcuffs for over two hours in the back of a police car,

despite having sufficient notice that the handcuffs were causing the Plaintiff extreme pain (i)

Plaintiff was unarmed; (ii) Plaintiff did not pose any threat to defendant officers or bystanders;

(iii) other alternative methods were available to effectuate the seizure of the Plaintiff without

causing him to suffer.

Monell Claim Against Oakland

49. It is alleged based on knowledge and belief that the City of Oakland through its police

department and its employee officers have engaged in the use of tight fitting handcuffs and the

leaving of individuals in the back of police cars for extending periods of time in tight handcuffs,

and that this conduct or practice has been taking place for the last 10 years and that the City of

Oakland has known of this practice and has ratified this conduct as an official custom or practice.

50. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the City of Oakland has sanctioned and ratified its

officers’ actions to engage in this type of conduct, including in this case; failed to train and

supervise its police officers properly to detain individuals under the color of the law; and acted

with deliberate indifference in failing to properly train its police officers or to adopt policies

necessary to prevent such constitutional violations. These violations are compensable pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983.


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

12

V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Plaintiffs pray for judgment against defendants as follows:

1. For compensatory damages and other special damages according to proof;

2. For general damages according to proof;

3. For punitive damages against all individual defendants according to proof;

4. The prejudgment interest at the legal rate according to proof;

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

6. For such other relief as the Court may deem fit and proper.

VI. JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs demand a jury trial in this action. LAW OFFICE OF STANLEY GOFF

Dated: June 14, 2020 _____/s/ STANLEY GOFF___

STANLEY GOFF Attorney for Plaintiff


JS-CAND 44 (Rev. 07/19) CIVIL COVER SHEET The JS-CAND 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved in its original form by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the Clerk of Court to initiate the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff

1 U.S. Government Plaintiff 3 Federal Question (U.S. Government Not a Party)

2 U.S. Government Defendant 4 Diversity (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant) PTF DEF PTF DEF Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4 of Business In This State Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5 of Business In Another State Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6 Foreign Country

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES 110 Insurance 120 Marine 130 Miller Act 140 Negotiable Instrument 150 Recovery of

Overpayment Of Veteran’s Benefits

151 Medicare Act 152 Recovery of Defaulted

Student Loans (Excludes Veterans)

153 Recovery of Overpayment

of Veteran’s Benefits 160 Stockholders’ Suits 190 Other Contract 195 Contract Product Liability 196 Franchise

REAL PROPERTY 210 Land Condemnation 220 Foreclosure 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 240 Torts to Land 245 Tort Product Liability 290 All Other Real Property

PERSONAL INJURY 310 Airplane 315 Airplane Product Liability 320 Assault, Libel & Slander 330 Federal Employers’

Liability 340 Marine 345 Marine Product Liability 350 Motor Vehicle 355 Motor Vehicle Product

Liability 360 Other Personal Injury 362 Personal Injury -Medical

Malpractice

CIVIL RIGHTS 440 Other Civil Rights 441 Voting 442 Employment 443 Housing/

Accommodations 445 Amer. w/Disabilities–

Employment 446 Amer. w/Disabilities–Other 448 Education

PERSONAL INJURY 365 Personal Injury – Product

Liability 367 Health Care/

Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability

368 Asbestos Personal Injury Product Liability

PERSONAL PROPERTY 370 Other Fraud 371 Truth in Lending 380 Other Personal Property

Damage 385 Property Damage Product

Liability

PRISONER PETITIONS

HABEAS CORPUS 463 Alien Detainee 510 Motions to Vacate

Sentence 530 General 535 Death Penalty

OTHER 540 Mandamus & Other 550 Civil Rights 555 Prison Condition 560 Civil Detainee–

Conditions of Confinement

625 Drug Related Seizure of Property 21 USC § 881

690 Other

LABOR 710 Fair Labor Standards Act 720 Labor/Management

Relations 740 Railway Labor Act 751 Family and Medical

Leave Act 790 Other Labor Litigation 791 Employee Retirement

Income Security Act

IMMIGRATION 462 Naturalization

Application 465 Other Immigration

Actions

422 Appeal 28 USC § 158 423 Withdrawal 28 USC

§ 157

PROPERTY RIGHTS 820 Copyrights 830 Patent 835 Patent─Abbreviated New

Drug Application 840 Trademark

SOCIAL SECURITY 861 HIA (1395ff) 862 Black Lung (923) 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 864 SSID Title XVI 865 RSI (405(g))

FEDERAL TAX SUITS 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff or

Defendant) 871 IRS–Third Party 26 USC

§ 7609

375 False Claims Act 376 Qui Tam (31 USC

§ 3729(a)) 400 State Reapportionment 410 Antitrust 430 Banks and Banking 450 Commerce 460 Deportation 470 Racketeer Influenced &

Corrupt Organizations 480 Consumer Credit 485 Telephone Consumer

Protection Act 490 Cable/Sat TV 850 Securities/Commodities/

Exchange 890 Other Statutory Actions 891 Agricultural Acts 893 Environmental Matters 895 Freedom of Information

Act 896 Arbitration 899 Administrative Procedure

Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision

950 Constitutionality of State Statutes

V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

1 Original Proceeding

2 Removed from State Court

3 Remanded from Appellate Court

4 Reinstated or Reopened

5 Transferred from Another District (specify)

6 Multidistrict Litigation–Transfer

8 Multidistrict Litigation–Direct File

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION

Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity): Brief description of cause:

VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT:

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION UNDER RULE 23, Fed. R. Civ. P.

DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: JURY DEMAND: Yes No

VIII. RELATED CASE(S), IF ANY (See instructions):

JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER

IX. DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT (Civil Local Rule 3-2) (Place an “X” in One Box Only) SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND SAN JOSE EUREKA-MCKINLEYVILLE

DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

Everette Highbaugh City of Vallejo and City of OaklandSolano County

Stanley Goff, 15 Boardman PlaceSan Francisco, Ca 94103 (415-571-9570)

42 U.S.C. Section 1983

Excessive Force, False Arrest, Brady Violation, Malicious Prosecution

06/14/2020 /s/ Stanley Goff

Case 3:20-cv-03911-WHA Document 1-1 Filed 06/14/20 Page 1 of 2

JS-CAND 44 (rev. 07/19)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS-CAND 44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet. The JS-CAND 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved in its original form by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the Clerk of Court to initiate the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:

I. a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official, giving both name and title.

b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnation cases, the county of residence of the “defendant” is the location of the tract of land involved.)

c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting in this section “(see attachment).”

II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an “X” in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.

(1) United States plaintiff. Jurisdiction based on 28 USC §§ 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.

(2) United States defendant. When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an “X” in this box.

(3) Federal question. This refers to suits under 28 USC § 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.

(4) Diversity of citizenship. This refers to suits under 28 USC § 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.)

III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS-CAND 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this section for each principal party.

IV. Nature of Suit. Place an “X” in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerk(s) in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than one nature of suit, select the most definitive.

V. Origin. Place an “X” in one of the six boxes.

(1) Original Proceedings. Cases originating in the United States district courts.

(2) Removed from State Court. Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 USC § 1441. When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.

(3) Remanded from Appellate Court. Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing date.

(4) Reinstated or Reopened. Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.

(5) Transferred from Another District. For cases transferred under Title 28 USC § 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict litigation transfers.

(6) Multidistrict Litigation Transfer. Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 USC § 1407. When this box is checked, do not check (5) above.

(8) Multidistrict Litigation Direct File. Check this box when a multidistrict litigation case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.

Please note that there is no Origin Code 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to changes in statute.

VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC § 553. Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service.

VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an “X” in this box if you are filing a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.

Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.

VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS-CAND 44 is used to identify related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.

IX. Divisional Assignment. If the Nature of Suit is under Property Rights or Prisoner Petitions or the matter is a Securities Class Action, leave this section blank. For all other cases, identify the divisional venue according to Civil Local Rule 3-2: “the county in which a substantial part of the events or omissions which give rise to the claim occurred or in which a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated.”

Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

Case 3:20-cv-03911-WHA Document 1-1 Filed 06/14/20 Page 2 of 2

stanley goff (bar no. 289564) law office of stanley goff · 1 day ago · law office of stanley...

Documents