25-LSC-04115 – Joined – Montblanc v. Los Santos Police Department Police Officer Shakhzadov (61658), and the Los Santos Police Department

[Kotwica]

SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS

CIVIL DIVISION

 

Case Name: Montblanc v. Los Santos Police Department Police Officer Shakhzadov (61658), and the Los Santos Police Department
 

Plaintiff Attorney: Juan Tzompaxtle

 

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET

_______________________________________________

 

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

 

Personal Torts

[X] 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.

• $100,000.00 for attorney fees;

• $1,50,000.00 from the Los Santos Police Department;

• $3,550,000.00 from the Officer Shakhzadov; and

• Whatever other relief this court deems appropriate.

_______________________________________________

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 19 day of April, 2025 by:

 

/S/ Laura Montblanc
Laura Montblanc

Plaintiff

 

/S/ Juan Tzompaxtle
Juan Tzompaxtle

Attorney for Plaintiff

[Kotwica]

Montblanc v. Los Santos Police Department Police Officer Shakhzadov (61658), and the Los Santos Police Department

 

Case Number: 25-LSC-04113

Prepared by: Juan Tzompaxtle
 

CIVIL CASE BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFF

_______________________________________________

 

Argument

1. Comes now, Laura Montblanc (Ms. Montblanc) through legal counsel brings forth this lawsuit before this court. This court has proper jurisdiction under the San Andreas Code of Civil Procedure (S.A.C.C.P) 410.10 (2024), as the Los Santos Police Department, and the named parties are employed by the Los Santos Police Department, the events occurred within the boundaries of the jurisdiction of this court in Market.
 

2. On April 18, 2025, Officer Shakhzadov (identified in the audio recording) of the Los Santos Police Department aimed a firearm at Ms. Montblanc, a citizen videotaping outside of any demarcation line by the Los Santos Police Department, peacefully, in the Market area of Los Santos. Her peaceful videotaping was abruptly cut short when Officer Shakhzadov wielded a weapon, aimed it at her and a group of peaceful observers, demanding that they leave the scene.

 

3. When the citizens continued to exercise their rights, Officer Shakhzadov used a police issued taser device to stun Mrs. Montblanc to prevent her recording.

 

4. The scene was not visible within the video, seemingly contained to the inside of a building of which the observers were not attempting to enter. 

 

5. Officer Shakhzadov's actions are in violation of the injunction of this court under Glorida Mendoza v. The Los Santos Police Department, The Los Santos Sheriff’s Department, The San Andreas Department of Corrections, and any other law enforcement agency within the State of San Andreas, 25-LSC-0411 (2025).
 

6. The tasing of Mrs. Montblanc is in violation of Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), where the Supreme Court held that the Government, including state agencies, are not protected by sovereign immunity when a state official enforces an unconstitutional law or acts in an unconstitutional manner.

 

7. The United States Supreme Court in City of Los Santos v. Lyons 461 U.S. 95 (1983), provides grounds for a court to grant a civil claim for constitutional violations committed by a law enforcement officer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

 

8. The Los Santos Police Department has failed to correct significant training defects, including properly training their officers on the protections awarded under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The United States Supreme Court held in Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), that municipality under the Civil Rights Act § 1983 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1983) can be held liable if their failure to train their officers reflects a "deliberate indifference" to the constitutional rights of individuals.

 

9. The Plaintiff prays that this court put an end to the incompetence and failures of the Los Santos Police Department to put the citizens of this city first, including cooperation with lawful requests. To award the monetary value associated with the damages of the plaintiff, and to award whatever other remedies this court deems appropriate.
 

Exhibits

1. Video tape of the Market incident.

((

))

 

_______________________________________________

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 19 day of April, 2025 by:

 

/s/ Juan Tzompaxtle
Juan Tzompaxtle

Edited April 19 by Kotwica

[Tungsten]

** The clerk accepts the case filing and assigns docket number 25-LSC-04115.
** The clerk assigns Judge Trent Caldwell as the presiding judicial officer.

 

[Kotwica]

(( Proof of service is submitted via e-file system:

 ))

Edited April 19 by Kotwica

[Mate01]

.

Edited April 19 by Mate01

[Mate01]

.

Edited April 19 by Mate01

[Kotwica]

Montblanc v. Los Santos Police Department Police Officer Shakhzadov (61658), and the Los Santos Police Department

 

Case Number: 25-LSC-04113

Prepared by: Juan Tzompaxtle
 

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE

_______________________________________________

 

Counter arguments:

1. The Los Santos Police Department misunderstands the statement provided in paragraph 6 of why Ex Parte Young is referenced. Ex Parte Young is mentioned solely to overcome a jurisdictional barrier if the Los Santos Police Department if they claim they are are immune to this suit under sovereign immunity. The Los Santos Police Department's "reservation of rights" is not a pleading which is required under Henderson v. United States, 517 U.S. 654, (1996). Additionally, the Los Santos Police Department remains silent on the applicability of City of Los Santos v. Lyons 461 U.S. 95 (1983) to overcome this same judicial barrier. Both of those cases on their own. Either one overcomes the sovereign immunity defense, however, the immunity request should be construed as waived because it was "reserved" and not "plead." 
  

2. The Los Santos Police Department is not entitled to a more definitive statement. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) requires the pass the bar of "plausibility." The plaintiff has submitted clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Montblanc's rights were deprived when a Police Officer violated her constitutional rights. Violation of constitutional rights is sufficient to satisfy a claim against the government, no additional damages are required. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

 

3. The Los Santos Police Department did not deny any claims in their response, therefore under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 36, and San Andreas Rules of Civil Procedure 2034, they have admitted to all of the claims aforementioned.
 

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 19 day of April, 2025 by:

 

/s/ Juan Tzompaxtle
Juan Tzompaxtle

 

(( OOC Note: The posts that are referenced here have been deleted by the original poster. ))

Edited April 19 by Tungsten
add OOC note to bottom of brief for OOC context

[Kotwica]

Montblanc v. Los Santos Police Department Police Officer Shakhzadov (61658), and the Los Santos Police Department
 

Case Number: 25-LSC-04113

Prepared by: Juan Tzompaxtle
 

SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

_______________________________________________
 

Comes now, Ms. Montblanc, through her attorney requests this Court to order the the production of the following items:

- The entire Internal Affairs File of Officer Shakhzadov, including any current or previous investigations;
- The entire training file of Officer Shakhzadov;
- All training material related to the First Amendment produced or taught by the Los Santos Police Department; and
- A summary of all Internal Affairs Complaints within the last year related to constitutional violations with a summary of how they were concluded.

_______________________________________________

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 19 day of April, 2025 by:

 

/s/ JUAN TZOMPAXTLE

Juan Tzompaxtle

[Prashlicious]

Superior Court of San Andreas

County of Los Santos
Civil Division

---

Case Name: Montblanc v. Los Santos Police Department Police Officer Shakhzadov (61658), and the Los Santos Police Department
Case Number: 25-LSC-04115

Order to Serve:

The court hereby issues the following order:

I. Jurisdiction
This Court has authority over this case. The incident took place in the Market area of Los Santos, which is within this Court's jurisdiction.

II. Sovereign Immunity

The defendants state that they have sovereign immunity in accordance with the Sovereign Immunity Act of 2018. The plaintiff argues that the immunity is not relevant using the examples of Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), and City of Los Santos v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983), and indicates that the defendants did not properly plead this defense.

The Plaintiff has also made the claims that Officer Shakhzadov has violated her First Amendment rights and that the Los Santos Police Department's manifestation of "deliberate indifference" to constitutional rights as specified in Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) may be exempted from immunity and may have failed to raise the defense of immunity as clearly demanded in Henderson v. United States, 517 U.S. 654 (1996), which may be interpreted as a relinquishment of the defense.

Therefore, the Court finds that the defendants have NO sovereign immunity at this stage. The defendants can bring back this claim provided that they supplement the pleading within 48 hours.

III. Possibility of a clearer statement
After the civil case brief was duly filled in with all the details and the accusations were confirmed by the audio, the Court regarded the Plaintiff’s declarations as very likely to be true with the test for plausibility being satisfied. The charges can be ordered well without going into more details.

Therefore, the Court DISMISSES any plea for a more definitive statement.

IV. Accountability of claims
Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 2034 of the San Andreas Rules of Civil Procedure provide that the absence of a denial may be regarded as an admission.
The 48 hours from the issuance of this Order are given to the Defendants for filing a response that would speak to each allegation. Otherwise, the allegations might be considered to constitute an admission of the claim.

V. SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
The Court regards the inquiries as pertinent to the Plaintiff’s case and accordingly ISSUES the subpoena. The Los Santos Police Department should bring the documents within 48 hours, redacting being the only thing that is aimed at the Court.

 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 20, 2025

/s/ Trent Caldwell
Superior Court Judge
County of Los Santos, Civil Division

Edited April 19 by Prashlicious

[elgreco]

Montblanc v. Los Santos Police Department Police Officer Shakhzadov (61658), and the Los Santos Police Department
 

Case Number: 25-LSC-04113

Prepared by: Ibraheem A. Davis
 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE, SUPPLEMENT IMMUNITY DEFENSE, AND COMPLY WITH SUBPOENA

_______________________________________________

The Defendant,  Los Santos Police Department, by and through undersigned counsel, and respectfully move this Honorable Court to grant an additional 72 hours to:

1. Supplement the sovereign immunity pleading as directed by the Court, and
2. To produce responsive documents as outlined in the Court’s Subpoena Duces Tecum.

In support of this Motion, the Defendant state the following:

 

1. The Court has granted Defendants 48 hours to supplement the immunity defense; however, additional time is necessary to review applicable precedents cited by the Plaintiff and provide a more detailed brief.
2. The production of documents in response to the Subpoena requires coordination with internal records personnel, and proper redaction of sensitive information in accordance with Department and legal standards.
3. This is the Defendants’ first request for an extension and is made in good faith, not for the purpose of delay.
4. No prejudice will result to the Plaintiff, and the extension will promote a more complete and just record before the Court.

WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant a  72 hour extension, extending the current deadline to 23 April 2025, for the supplementation of the sovereign immunity defense and compliance with the Subpoena Duces Tecum.

Respectfully submitted,  
 

/s/ IBRAHEEM A, DAVIS

Ibraheem A. Davis

Legal Representative
Los Santos Police Department  

[Tungsten]

** The clerk updates this case's docket with a notice that it has been joined into Case 25-LSC-04117, Montblanc v. Los Santos Police Department.

 

(( 

 ))