LCS-CV-2024-001 - Post-Award - Castillo v. Los Santos County Sheriff's Department

[Levy, Bell & Weinstein]

SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS

CIVIL DIVISION

 

Case Name: Stefan Castillo v. Los Santos County Sheriff's Department

Plaintiff Attorney: Ari Levy

 

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET

_______________________________________________

 

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

 

Personal Torts

[ ] Assault, battery, or unlawful contact

[ ] False imprisonment

[ ] Intentional infliction of emotional distress

[X] Deprivation of rights under color of law

 

Negligent Torts

[ ] Breach of duty

[ ] Negligent infliction of emotional distress

[ ] Professional or Medical Negligence

 

Property Torts

[ ] Trespassing or Conversion

[ ] Nuisance

[ ] Theft

[ ] Detainder

 

Dignitary Torts

[ ] Defamation (Slander or Libel)

[ ] Invasion of privacy

[ ] Breach of confidence

[ ] Abuse of process

[ ] Malicious prosecution

[ ] Alienation of affections

 

Business Torts

[ ] Fraud

[ ] Tortious interference

[ ] Conspiracy

[ ] Restraint of trade

[ ] Passing off

 

Contracts

[ ] Breach of Contract

[ ] Collections

 

Judicial Review

[ ] Denial or Revocation of Business License

[ ] Denial or Revocation of Firearms License

 

2. List any damages sustained or fees accrued. Include billing rate for attorneys, expert witnesses, etc.

• ~$240,000 in lost overtime wages

• $500,000 in emotional damages and distress

• $750,000 in attorney fees

_______________________________________________

Certification. The undersigned swears or affirms, under penalty of perjury, that the information contained herein is truthful to the best of his knowledge.

 

Sworn this 30th day of June, 2024 by:

 

/S/ NAME OF PLAINTIFF

Stefan Castillo

Plaintiff

 

/S/ NAME OF ATTORNEY
Ari Levy

Attorney for Plaintiff

[almightybounter]

* Judge Hockenbeyer looks at the pages laying before him, resting both elbows onto the table. 

 

"Please provide the civil brief and the Clerk shall assign a case number under a well pleaded complaint." 

 

@Levy, Bell & Weinstein

Edited June 30, 2024 by almightybounter

[Levy, Bell & Weinstein]

Plaintiff v. Defendant

 

Case Number: YY-XNNN

Prepared by: Ari Levy

 

CIVIL CASE BRIEF FOR [PLAINTIFF/DEFENDANT]

_______________________________________________

 

Argument

1. Sergeant Stefan Castillo is a sergeant with the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department. Los Santos County Sheriff's Department is a law enforcement agency operating in Los Santos County. Sergeant Elise Crawford is a Sergeant with the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department, and head of it's Internal Affairs Division.

2. On the night of June 25th going into June 26th, Sergeant Castillo witnessed Deandre Lawrence chasing Franklin Mejora with a baseball bat. Lawrence then tackled Mejora, and began attacking him with aforementioned weapon. 

3. At this point the threat to life was clear, and the victim testified to this fact.

4. Sergeant Castillo followed correct department protocol and fired once to save the life of the victim. He then asked the suspect to toss the weapon to the side. The suspect complied.

5. Sergeant Castillo then detained the suspect and administered aid while waiting for medics to arrive on scene.

6. Deputy Drake Hollow and Captain David Gunner transported the suspect, while Sergeant Castillo transported the victim. 

7. Deputy Hollow and Captain Gunner did not follow appropriate internal protocols to question use of force, circumventing this crucial policy to go directly to IA.

8. IA ask Sergeant Castillo for a statement, which he provides voluntarily. 

9. Sergeant Elise Crawford then says she has more questions for Sergeant Castillo. 

10. He invokes his fifth amendment rights, refusing to answer more questions without recieving his Garrity rights, and being provided with representation and legal counsel. 

11. Sergeant Crawford tries to put him on administrative leave and disarm him for refusing to answer these further questions. A clear violation of Garrity v. New Jersey.

12. The only reason he is not placed on leave at this point is because Sergeant Castillo reiterates his rights, and tells Sergeant Crawford if she wishes to disarm him she must do so herself.

13. Sergeant Castillo was unable to finish his arrest report and conclude his investigation with Mr Mejora.

14. After an interview taking place on the 26th of June, Sergeant Castillo was placed on adminstrative leave.

15. On the 30th of June his administrative leave was ended without explanation. Sergeant Crawford has refused to give a reason as to why the leave was both given, and ended.

16. Alongside monetary damages, the plantiff requests Sergeant Crawford's immediate termination, and his administrative leave to be expunged from his personnel record.

 

Exhibits

1. An incident report affirming Sergeant Castillo was right to take the action he took

(( Link to OOC Proof ))

 

Witness List

1. Captain Guanti

(( Link to Forum Profile ))

 

 

_______________________________________________

Certification. The undersigned swears or affirms, under penalty of perjury, that the information contained herein is truthful to the best of his knowledge.

 

Sworn this 30th day of June,  2024 by:

 

/s/ NAME OF ATTORNEY

Ari Levy

 

 

Edited June 30, 2024 by Levy, Bell & Weinstein

[almightybounter]

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF SAN ANDREAS

Stefan Castillo Plaintiff,

v.

Los Santos County Sheriff's Department Defendant.

Case Number: LCS-CV-2024-001
 

ORDER
 

This case has been assigned Case Number LCS-CV-2024-001.

The Plaintiff, Stefan Castillo, represented by Attorney Ari Levy, is hereby ORDERED to serve a copy of the Civil Case Brief and this Order upon the Defendant, Los Santos County Sheriff's Department, using a method permitted by law.
 

The Defendant shall have FIVE (5) DAYS from the date of service to file a response to the Complaint with the Clerk of Courts and serve a copy on the Plaintiff's attorney.

 

Failure of the Defendant to respond within the specified timeframe may result in a default judgment being entered against them.
 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: 30-06-2024

---

Martin Hockenbeyer

Judge

 

@Levy, Bell & Weinstein

Edited June 30, 2024 by almightybounter

[ImperiumXVII]

Good morning, Sophie Thyne for the Los Santos Police Department. I will be representing the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department in this case due to staffing shortages.

[almightybounter]

"Before we move forward, are both sides prepared to present opening statements, or would you prefer to waive them and proceed directly with the Plaintiff's case-in-chief?"

 

@Michael @Levy, Bell & Weinstein

[Levy]

Good morning, Ms Thyne. We're looking forward to working with you again. It seems the Sheriff Department's representation is scared to come up against my firm a second time, and with good reason.

 

Your honor, we would like to submit a Motion to Compel. We believe the LSSD IA investigation contains evidence that is cruicial to this case, and we would like access to it.

 

 

[Levy]

Stefan Castillo v. Los Santos County Sheriff's Department
 

Case Number: LCS-CV-2024-001

Prepared by: Ari Levy, Napoleon Bell
 

MOTION TO COMPEL

_______________________________________________
 

We request the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department share all documentation, including transcripts, included in their IA investigation Case No. I13-6486. We believe this file contains information pertinent to this case, and we require access to it.

_______________________________________________

Certification. The undersigned swears or affirms, under penalty of perjury, that the information contained herein is truthful to the best of his knowledge.

 

Sworn this 1st day of July, 2024 by:

 

/s/ NAME OF ATTORNEY

Ari Levy

 

... Additional Attorney Signatures

 

/s/ NAME OF ATTORNEY

Napoleon Bell

[almightybounter]

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF SAN ANDREAS

Stefan Castillo, Plaintiff,

v.

Los Santos County Sheriff's Department, Defendant.

Case Number: LCS-CV-2024-001
 

MINUTE ORDER
 

Date: 01-07-2024

Judge: Martin Hockenbeyer

Appearances:

• Ari Levy, Attorney for Plaintiff
• Sophie Thyne, Attorney for Defendant
   

Motion to Compel

The Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Compel requesting the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department to share all documentation, including transcripts, included in their IA investigation Case No. I13-6486.
 

Counsel for the Defendant, how do you respond to the Plaintiff's request for documents related to IA investigation Case No. I13-6486?

The Defendant's response is due within 2 days.
 

SO ORDERED.

Martin Hockenbeyer

Judge

@Michael

Edited July 1, 2024 by almightybounter

[ImperiumXVII]

Your honour, mere "belief" is not enough to compel a private - no, confidential - file of an active investigation on a member of the department that is also currently actively serving. To compel this file would place the administrative investigation's integrity in jeopardy at a time when it needs to be as fair, un-rushed and thorough as possible to make sure that plaintiff Stefan Castillo is treated fairly and equally under the law. To intentionally disrupt Mr. Castillo's investigation now could be detrimental to Mr. Castillo.

 

Further, can the plaintiff actually provide anything more than "we believe" that what they are seeking is in this case file? Otherwise what stops me from requesting Mr. Castillo's bank statements on the off-chance that there might be something related to his performance as a peace officer?

 

@almightybounter

[Levy]

Your honor, I find it laughable that the defence dares claim they want to treat my client “fairly and equally under the law”.
 

Where was this desire when Sergeant Castillo was being forced to answer questions without representation or face disciplinary action? 

Sergeant Castillo was placed on leave on the 26th but this leave ended abruptly on the 30th without explanation. We believe the reason the leave was ended was because someone informed Sergeant Crawford she had broken the law by refusing Sergeant Castillo his Garrity rights, and the leave was quickly ended in an halfhearted attempt to rectify this.

 

I’d like for the IA files to reveal she had ended his leave for another reason, mandated by some sort of strange policy that can explain 4 days of unexplained leave. I fear this will not be the case. 

 

We would also like to use the transcripts as evidence to support our argument. The defence is free to redact sensitive information as necessary. Personal information of civilians involved and so on.

 

Please do not claim that you are acting in the best interests of my client. That ship has sailed. 

Edited July 1, 2024 by Levy

[ImperiumXVII]

Your honour, more "we believe" and no "we have evidence that suggests..." talk here. The plaintiff's motion to compel is not based on any kind of fact, but mere belief, and should be rejected.

[almightybounter]

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF SAN ANDREAS

Stefan Castillo, Plaintiff,

v.

Los Santos County Sheriff's Department, Defendant.

Case Number: LCS-CV-2024-001
 

ORDER

Motion to Compel

Date: 02-07-2024
 

This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel requesting access to all documentation, including transcripts, from the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department's Internal Affairs (IA) investigation Case No. I13-6486. The Defendant opposes the motion, arguing that disclosure would jeopardize the investigation's integrity and is not necessary for the Plaintiff's case.
 

The Court has reviewed the arguments presented by both parties.

In order to balance the Plaintiff's need for potentially relevant evidence with the Defendant's concerns about confidentiality, the Court will conduct an in-camera review of the requested documents.
 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Los Santos County Sheriff's Department shall submit a complete copy of IA investigation Case No. I13-6486 to the Court for in-camera review by 04-07-2024.
2. The Court will review the documents in chambers and determine which portions, if any, are relevant to the Plaintiff's case and can be disclosed without jeopardizing the integrity of the IA investigation.
3. The Court will issue a subsequent order outlining its decision on the Motion to Compel. This order may include:
   • Granting the Plaintiff access to specific redacted portions of the documents.
   • Denying the Motion to Compel if the Court finds the documents are not relevant to the Plaintiff's case.

 

SO ORDERED.

Martin Hockenbeyer

Judge

@Michael @Levy, Bell & Weinstein

Edited July 2, 2024 by almightybounter

[Levy]

Thank you, your honor. 

[almightybounter]

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF SAN ANDREAS

Stefan Castillo, Plaintiff,

v.

Los Santos County Sheriff's Department, Defendant.

Case Number: LCS-CV-2024-001

Date: 02-07-2024

Order Granting Motion to Compel in Part

 

This Court, upon review of the requested documents from Internal Affairs investigation file I13-6486 and the arguments of counsel, notes Sergeant Castillo's refusal to participate in a field interview on 26-06-2024. There is a concern that Sergeant Castillo's rights may have been violated, particularly regarding the application of the Garrity rights.

 

ORDERS:

1. Sergeant Castillo's Interview:

   • Sergeant Castillo is ORDERED to participate in a formal, recorded interview with the Internal Affairs Department within TWO business days of this Order.
   • Sergeant Castillo must be presented his RIGHTS before the interview.
      

2. Redacted Documents and Footage:

   • The Motion to Compel filed by Plaintiff, Stefan Castillo, represented by Ari Levy, on 01-07-2024, is GRANTED IN PART.
   • The Internal Affairs Department shall provide Plaintiff, Stefan Castillo, represented by Ary Levy, with the following redacted documents and footage from Case No. I13-6486:
     • A redacted copy of the CCTV footage depicting the events at the Winona Avenue, Pizza Stacks Parking Lot on 26-06-2024. Redactions shall be limited to:
       • Tactics or procedures used by law enforcement during IA investigations.
       • Identities of bystanders not yet interviewed.
       • Any irrelevant details that do not directly contribute to understanding the use of force.
     • Any relevant reports or documentation regarding the field interview conducted on 26-06-2024, with redactions limited to protecting the identities of uninterviewed witnesses and tactics/procedures.
   • The redacted documents and footage shall be provided to Plaintiff, Stefan Castillo, represented by Ari Levy, within TWO business days of this Order.

SO ORDERED.

Martin Hockenbeyer

Judge

 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF SAN ANDREAS

Stefan Castillo, Plaintiff,

v.

Los Santos County Sheriff's Department, Defendant.

Case Number: LCS-CV-2024-001

Date: 02-07-2024
 

Order to Show Cause Regarding Sergeant Castillo's Administrative Leave

 

This Court, upon reviewing the case and the arguments of counsel, has concerns regarding the administrative leave imposed on Sergeant Castillo following the events of June 26th, 2024.
 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department shall appear before this Court within THREE business days to show cause why Sergeant Castillo has been put on administrative leave.
 

The Sheriff's Department shall come prepared to address the following:

• The justification for placing Sergeant Castillo on administrative leave.
• The specific policy or regulation violated by Sergeant Castillo, if any.
• The details of the ongoing investigation, considering the REDACTED materials already provided.
• Whether the administrative leave constitutes retaliation for Sergeant Castillo asserting his rights during the field interview.

A copy of this Order shall be served on the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department at least TWO days before the hearing date.

 

SO ORDERED.

Martin Hockenbeyer

Judge

 

@Levy @Michael

Edited July 2, 2024 by almightybounter