25-LSC-04118 - Filed – Reddington v. Los Santos Police Department Officers Mercer, Ostragna, and Detective Monaghan, and the Los Santos Police Department

[Kotwica]

SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS

CIVIL DIVISION

 

Case Name: Reddington v. 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

[X] Intentional infliction of emotional distress

[X] Deprivation of rights under color of law

 

Negligent Torts

[X] Breach of duty

[ ] Negligent infliction of emotional distress

[X] 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.

• $10,000,000.00 in damages;

• Coverage of all future medical fees associated with the unlawful shooting of Marcel Reddington;

• Door replacement;

• $100,000.00 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 21 day of April, 2025 by:

 

/S/ Marcel Reddington

Marcel Reddington

Plaintiff

 

/S/ JUAN TZOMPAXTLE
Juan Tzompaxtle

Attorney for Plaintiff

Edited April 21 by Kotwica

[Tungsten]

** The clerk accepts the filing and assigns docket number 25-LSC-04118; Trent Caldwell, presiding.

[Kotwica]

Reddington v. Los Santos Police Department Officers Mercer, Ostragna, and Detective Monaghan, and the Los Santos Police Department

 

Case Number: 25-LSC-04118 

Prepared by: Juan Tzompaxtle

 

CIVIL CASE BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFF

_______________________________________________

 

Argument

1. On February 9, 2025 Mister Marcel Reddington (Mr. Reddington), was located within his home, a trailer in the Las Colinas Trailer Park (541 Ambrose Street). This court has proper jurisdiction under the San Andreas Code of Civil Procedure (S.A.C.C.P) 410.10 (2024), as the incident occurred within Las Colinas and the parties are members of the Los Santos Police Department.
 

2. While located inside his home, utilizing the restroom, three police officers broke into Mr. Reddington's home, an officer identified as Officer Ostregna fired a shot, striking Mr. Reddington in the arm. Mr. Reddington was then ordered to the ground, and his home was searched for weapons. No weapon was found in the residence or on the property of 541 Ambrose Street.

 

3. The Police Officers did not provide a search warrant, Mr. Reddington claims that he was within his home for the day. Mr. Reddington was given an explanation by the officers that they pursued him into his house because he shot at an officer. Mr. Reddington did not discharge a firearm, no firearm was found on him, and he did not leave his house. The Los Santos Police Department officers either fabricated a story, or misidentified Mr. Reddington.

 

4. After Mr. Reddington was taken outside, the Los Santos Police Department did not call for medical assistance for Mr. Reddington. Rather, Mr. Reddington had to call 911 himself and a volunteer ambulance squad arrived and provided treatment to Mr. Reddington.

 

5. After being released by the volunteer ambulance squad, Mr. Reddington was given $5,000 by Officer Ostrenga to "buy new clothes," after he shot him and ruined the clothes Mister Reddington was wearing at the time of the shooting.

 

6. Mister Reddington brought his complaints, and the money to the Harbor Police Station and met with an Officer Turner and Lieutenant Esparragoza and reported the incident. Officer Turner and Lieutenant Esparragoza collected shell casings from Mr. Reddington's home at 541 Ambrose Street. During this interaction Mr. Reddington returned the $5,000 bribe to Lieutenant Esparragoza.

7. Mr. Reddington filed an internal affairs report on February 11, 2025 which was assigned the identifier CF25-12642. On March 16, 2025 the internal affairs report complaint was returned and the Los Santos Police Department Internal Affairs Group stated that Mr. Reddington's complaint was "sufficient to sustain all claims against the personnel."

8. Mr. Reddington has noted that he continues to see Officer Ostregna on patrol. The sight of Officer Ostrenga has prompted Mr. Reddington with anxiety. The fact that the Los Santos Police Department has not properly addressed his claims in his view has led to a distrust of police, and has continued to cause him extraordinary emotional hardships.

 

9. To prove a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress a plaintiff must claim a primary tort claim, here that claim is battery (albeit no battery needs to occur). Intentional infliction of emotional distress occurs when a person, through extreme or outrageous behavior intentionally (or recklessly) causes severe emotional distress, mental trauma and/or bodily harm to another. Here, the unlawful and unwarranted discharging of a firearm which wounded Mr. Reddington was extreme and outrageous, the pulling of the trigger establishes intent, and Mr. Reddington has claimed mental trauma.

9. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Although the courts have held that in extenuating circumstances law enforcement officers do not need a warrant to enter a premises, the law enforcement officers are not shielded if they enter the wrong home as held such as in Hardy v. City of New York, 732 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 2013). 

 

10. The Federal Circuits have held that a law enforcement officer who discharges a weapon against a person is required to call for an ambulance, albeit they do not need to provide emergency aid even if they are trained to do so. Stevens-Rucker v. City of Columbus, Nos. 17-3384/3475, 2018 WL 3377542 (6th Cir. July 10, 2018).

11.  The plaintiff prayers for the relief requested and any other relief this court finds acceptable.

 

 

Exhibits

1. Internal Affairs Complaint

 

2. Internal Affairs Conclusion

3. Affidavit of Mr. Reddington, sworn to on April 21, 2025.

 

Reddington v. Los Santos Police Department Officers Mercer, Ostragna, and Detective Monaghan, and the Los Santos Police Department

 

Case Number: 25-LSC-04118 

Prepared by: Juan Tzompaxtle

 

AFFIDAVIT FOR PLAINTIFF

_______________________________________________  

 

At my trailer, 541 Ambrose Street, Las Colinas, Los Santos 828 on 02/09/2025 at approximately 20:40, two Officers with the Los Santos Police Department - Officer Mercer and Ostrenga, Detective Monaghan and a unidentified Los Santos County Sheriffs Deputy broke into my home and shot me. 

 

I was using the bathroom in the far end of my trailer when all the sudden I heard my door get kicked in and immediately afterwards I heard a gunshot and was in lots of pain. Officer Ostrenga shot me in my arm while I was standing behind the bathroom door after blindly opening fire in my home. I had no weapon/firearm on me and I made no movements to indicate I'd be a threat. I was simply standing behind my bathroom door as I stood up from the toilet after hearing my door get kicked in.

 

Officer Mercer, who initiated this situation, mustered the other officers together to break into my house illegally and without a search/arrest warrant. According to Officer Ostrenga, Officer Mercer told other officers I was an armed suspect who had just shot at him, which undoubtedly made them nervous and led to shooting me while unarmed. 

 

After I was shot, I was placed in cuffs, searched and taken outside my home. Detective Monaghan searched my house and came up with nothing and I had no firearms on me, so that story was obviously fabricated by Officer Mercer as I had been home the entire day and hadn't left. After finding no guns on my person or in my home, Officer Mercer told Ostrenga to "clean up your mess and cut him loose" so they clearly had no justified reason to have done this, as a person who just shot at police would never be released so hastily. 

 

I was provided no medical aid following the shooting and was left bleeding and cuffed outside while they searched my home. After finding nothing, they uncuffed me, and I was forced to call 911 and request my own medical assistance from LSFD as I wasn't being given any by the officers. After calling the emergency dispatch for medical aid, I asked them to request a supervisor multiple times, but I was given the run around and was eventually told none were available. 

 

I called the non-emergency line after I was treated and requested a supervisor, and I was immediately called back by an Officer Turner who met me at Harbor Station with a Lieutenant Esparragoza so that was clearly another deception by the officer. 

 

One important note, after Officer Ostrenga released me, he tried to bribe me and gave me $5000 and told me to "go buy some new clothes". I turned the money into Officer Turner and the Lieutenant at Harbor Station after I provided my complaint. The Lieutenant and Officer continued their investigation and went to my home, collected the shell casing and took photos. In conclusion, my house was broken into and searched without a warrant, I was shot without cause, neglected of my request for a supervisor and medical aid and then bribed with cash by the officer who shot me.

 

 I filed an Internal Affairs complaint on 02/11/2025 and was provided case number CF25-12642. On 03/14/2025, one month after filing my complaint, I sent an email to follow-up on the status of the complaint and was told the investigation was concluded and the outcome will not be disclosed for confidential reasons. I have encountered the officer who shot me several times patrolling on the street as if this incident had never happened. I get panic attacks and go into shock whenever I recall this traumatic incident or encounter the officer on the street. This incident has severely affected my mental health and the LSPD has clearly not taken this incident seriously and continues to allow the chance for this officer to victimize someone else.

 

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

Sworn this 21st day of April, 2025 by: Marcel Reddington

/s/ Marcel Reddington

 

 

 

_______________________________________________

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 21 day of April, 2025 by:

 

/s/ JUAN TZOMPAXTLE
Juan Tzompaxtle

 

[Kotwica]

** The following notice is e-filed.

[Kotwica]

Reddington v. Los Santos Police Department Officers Mercer, Ostragna, and Detective Monaghan, and the Los Santos Police Department
 

Case Number: 25-LSC-04118 

Prepared by: Juan Tzompaxtle
 

SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

_______________________________________________
 

- The names of Officer Mercer, Ostragna, and Detective Monaghan;
- The personnel files to include all internal affairs files on Officers Mercer, Ostragna, and Detective Monaghan;
- All training files on Officers Mercer, Ostragna, and Detective Monaghan;
- The unredacted internal affairs report, investigator interviews, and determinations related to internal affairs file "CF25-12642" filed on February 11, 2025;
- All training materials taught, or published by the Los Santos Police Department related to probable cause warrants, extenuating circumstances, hot pursuit, and their limitations;

- All training materials taught, or published by the Los Santos Police Department related to the Fourth Amendment;
 

_______________________________________________

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 21 day of April, 2025 by:

 

/s/ JUAN TZOMPAXTLE
Juan Tzompaxtle

[Kotwica]

Reddington v. Los Santos Police Department Officers Mercer, Ostragna, and Detective Monaghan, and the Los Santos Police Department
 

Case Number: 25-LSC-04118

Prepared by: Juan Tzompaxtle
 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

_______________________________________________
 

Comes now, Mr. Reddington through his legal representative requests this court to grant summary judgment against all named parties.

The plaintiff has alleged sufficient plausible facts that meet the Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 US 544 (2007) standard. The defendant has failed to file a timely appearance an appearance, has not raised a triable issue of material fact as required under San Andreas Code of Civil Procedure Section 437(c). Additionally, the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law under the aforementioned section.

The plaintiff further requests the relief requested under this lawsuit and the joined lawsuit. By failing to respond to this lawsuit, the plaintiff believes that the named parties have acted with malice and hereby requests punitive damages including the payment of 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 26 day of April, 2025 by:

 

/s/ Juan Tzompaxtle

Juan Tzompaxtle

Edited April 26 by Kotwica

[elgreco]

Reddington v. Los Santos Police Department, et al.

 

Case number: 25-LSC-04118

Prepared by: Ibraheem A. Davis

 

DEFENSE RESPONSE ON BEHALF OF THE LOS SANTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT

_______________________________________________________________________________________

The Los Santos Police Department ("LSPD"), by and through its counsel, respectfully submits this response to the claims raised by the Plaintiff, Marcel Reddington.

First and foremost, the Department must clarify that all officers identified in the Plaintiff's filings, specifically Officers Mercer, Ostrenga, and Detective Monaghan, are no longer employed by the Los Santos Police Department as of the date of this filing.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s attempt to impose liability against the Department under a theory of respondeat superior, or for any ongoing conduct by these individuals, is misplaced.

 

I. Sovereign Immunity Limits Recovery to Statutory Cap

While the Plaintiff seeks $10,000,000.00 in damages, such a demand is plainly barred by the San Andreas Sovereign Immunity Act (S.A.S.I.A.), Subsection III. That section expressly states:

 

Quote

"When sovereign immunity is waived against any agency or its actor, the maximum amount that any State, local agency, or actor shall be subjected to pay for any particular claim shall be $200,000."

 

This statutory cap has been consistently upheld in courts, including Guttenberg v. School Board of Broward County, 303 So. 3d 522 (Fla. 2020) where the court enforced a similar sovereign immunity damages cap despite the claims.

Therefore, even assuming liability (which is expressly denied), the Plaintiff’s claim for $10,000,000.00 is legally untenable and must be reduced to the statutory maximum.

II. No Monell Liability Without Pattern of Misconduct

Plaintiff's complaint implies a broader institutional fault. However, under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), a government agency cannot be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 simply because it employs a wrongdoer. There must be proof of a policy or custom that directly caused the alleged injury.

No such policy or pattern of unlawful conduct by the LSPD has been pled or established here. An isolated incident, even if proven (which again is expressly denied), does not give rise to Monell liability. See also City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808 (1985).

III. Qualified Immunity Bars Recovery Against Individual Officers

Furthermore, assuming arguendo that any of the named officers were still employed, each would be entitled to qualified immunity. Under Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009), government officials performing discretionary functions are immune from civil damages unless they violate "clearly established" constitutional rights.

Given the circumstances described, wherein the officers reportedly believed an armed threat existed, their actions fall within the zone of protection afforded by qualified immunity.

IV. Conclusion

While the Plaintiff’s injuries are not minimized, the LSPD respectfully submits that:

- The claims against the Department fail as a matter of law;
- The $10,000,000.00 demand exceeds the legal limit of the Sovereign Immunity Act, sub-section (C) of section three. Exceptions to Sovereign Immunity.
- No Monell liability is established;
- Qualified immunity would independently bar any personal recovery against the named officers.
- Plaintiff is to submit a medical record of constituted injuries, given consideration to the claimant's past filed lawsuits against the department, presumably proposing a bad intent in defaming the LSPD.

Accordingly, the Department respectfully requests that this Court dismiss the Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice, or, in the alternative, substantially limit any recovery consistent with applicable law.

[elgreco]

Reddington v. Los Santos Police Department, et al.

 

Case number: 25-LSC-04118

Prepared by: Ibraheem A. Davis

 

DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE OPPOSITION
_______________________________________________________________________

 

 

Defendant, Los Santos Police Department, respectfully move this Court for leave to file their Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Good cause exists for this request. This motion is filed ensure that the case is decided based on merits rather than a procedural default.

I. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO GRANT LEAVE

The Defendant acknowledges the short lapse in filing its Opposition, which resulted from an excusable forgetfulness, rather than willful neglect. 

In accord with Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates, 507 U.S. 380 (1993), courts recognize that slight errors, if made in good faith, must not deprive a party of an opportunity to be heard.

Besides, courts prefer overwhelmingly to decide cases on their merits as to substance rather than procedural niceties (Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962)).

II. PLAINTIFF SUFFERS NO PREJUDICE

Plaintiff will not be prejudiced in any significant manner by the temporary delay.

As the court held in Bateman v. U.S. Postal Service, 231 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2000), mere delay, standing alone, is insufficient to deny a motion for leave to respond.
Granting Defendant leaves to file serves the just disposition of this controversy.

In addition to Smith v. City of New York, (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 20, 2021)

Plaintiff brought various claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of New York and police officers for excessive force and other deprivations. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the complaint, emphasizing the importance of proper procedural conduct and timely responses in litigation.

 

III. INTEREST OF JUSTICE DEMANDS THAT THE COURT ALLOW FILING

 

Allowing the Defendant to file its Opposition ensures that the case is decided based on the substantive issues, not a procedural failure. The Court has discretion to grant leave for filing when the delay is minor, and no harm will be caused to the Plaintiff.

IV. CONCLUSION

For these reasons set forth above, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant leave to file the attached Opposition and allow the matter to proceed on the merits.

[Kotwica]

Reddington v. Los Santos Police Department Officers Mercer, Ostragna, and Detective Monaghan, and the Los Santos Police Department
 

Case Number: 25-LSC-04118

Prepared by: Juan Tzompaxtle
 

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

_______________________________________________
 

Comes now, the plaintiff, through his counsel requests this honorable court to compel the discovery of the below mentioned items that a subpoena duces tecum was issued by Juan Tzompaxtle in this court filings on April 21, 2025. The defendant's counsel has willfully not complied with the order and has thereby unnecessarily prolonged the pretrial period of this case.

The plaintiff requests the court to order the plaintiff to release the following discovery items:

- The names of Officer Mercer, Ostragna, and Detective Monaghan;
- The personnel files to include all internal affairs files on Officers Mercer, Ostragna, and Detective Monaghan;
- All training files on Officers Mercer, Ostragna, and Detective Monaghan;
- The unredacted internal affairs report, investigator interviews, and determinations related to internal affairs file "CF25-12642" filed on February 11, 2025;
- All training materials taught, or published by the Los Santos Police Department related to probable cause warrants, extenuating circumstances, hot pursuit, and their limitations; and

- All training materials taught, or published by the Los Santos Police Department related to the Fourth Amendment.

The plaintiff further requests that if the defendants counsel does not release the aforementioned items timely (at the discretion of the court) he be sanctioned and the court allow for additional punitive damages.

 

_______________________________________________

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 30 day of April, 2025 by:

 

/s/ Juan Tzompaxtle
Juan Tzompaxtle

[n0de101]

(( As per the recent announcement from LFM, courts are being placed on an indefinite hold effective immediately. As such all ongoing court proceedings are being terminated. ))