25-LSC-04119 Jefferson v. Officer Gregory Huntington and the Los Santos Police Department

[Kotwica]

SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS

CIVIL DIVISION

 

Case Name: Jefferson v. Officer Gregory Huntington and the Los Santos Police Department

Plaintiff Attorney: Michelle Jefferson

 

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.

• $1,500,000.00 in punitive damages

• $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 29 day of April, 2025 by:

 

/S/ Juan Tzompaxtle, on behalf of Michelle Jefferson
Michelle Jefferson

Plaintiff

 

/S/ JUAN TZOMPAXTLE
Juan Tzompaxtle

Attorney for Plaintiff

[Kotwica]

Jefferson v. Officer Gregory Huntington and the Los Santos Police Department

 

Case Number: 25-LSC-04119

Prepared by: Juan Tzompaxtle

 

CIVIL CASE BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFF

_______________________________________________

 

Argument

1. On April 27, 2025, Plaintiff Ms. Michelle Jefferson (Ms. Jefferson), was videotaping members of the Los Santos Police Department within her rights granted by the Constitution, and by this courts ruling in Gloria Mendoza v. The Los Santos Police Department, et al., San.An.1d 25-LSC-04111 (2025). During Ms. Jeffersons protected activity, a uniformed officer of the Los Santos Police Department, later identified as Gregory Huntington, approached Ms. Jefferson as she was filming a police traffic stop.
 

2. Officer Huntington positioned himself behind Ms. Jefferson, who was of no threat to the Police Officers where he engaged in a short but threatening conversation with Ms. Jefferson where he threatened that he would "[...] arrest you (referring to Ms. Jefferson) on God." This threat is in clear violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the court's ruling in Mendoza. Further, Officer Huntington instructs Ms. Jefferson to "stop interacting with police." Uniquely, Officer Huntington engaged the interaction with Ms. Jefferson by approaching her during the traffic stop. The statement of "stop interacting with police" has a chilling effect, and also violates Ms. Jefferson's rights.

3. Although Ms. Jefferson was not arrested, an arrest is not required in order to establish a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 violation. See Hufford v. McEnaney, 249 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2001), see also Stearns v. Clarkson Valley, 615 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2010);  Barna v. Board of School Directors, 143 F.3d 807 (3d Cir. 1998); and Copeland v. Vance, 893 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 2018).
 

6. The Defendants cannot establish a qualified immunity claim.  The Ninth Circuit in Hufford v. McEnaney, 249 F.3d 1142 (9 Cir. 2001) held that qualified immunity is determined by whether “[a] constitutional right would have been violated were [the plaintiff’s] allegations established,” the next step in evaluating a claim to qualified immunity “is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). “Whether an official protected by qualified immunity may be held personally liable for an allegedly unlawful official action generally turns on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639 (1987) (citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818-19 (1982). Here, not only are Police Officers presumably instructed in the police academy about the First Amendment but the Los Santos Police Department was subject to an injunction which "[...] establishes that recording the police while standing in a public area or private area, on which a person has a right or privilege of presence, and which has not been established as a clearly restricted boundary. Clearly restricted boundaries shall constitute those areas of public or private property which are clearly marked as a crime scene or an emergency scene and shall be marked with police tape, emergency vehicles, clearly marked signage with writing in English, or peace officers preventing access to an area by means of blocking a sidewalk or other point of egress or entry to a particular area." Mendoza.

 

7. The plaintiff requests request for punitive damages is warranted as the Los Santos Police Department continues to violate the rights of citizens even after a court order explicitly prohibiting the conduct of Officer Huntington.

 

8. The continuous constitutional violations shows that the Los Santos Police Department is either ignorant to the law or indifferent to the law. This purposeful ignorance or indifference gives rise to a claim against the Los Santos Police Department under the theory of respondeat superior but also under the Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), standard that a government agency can be held liable if the department's failure to train their officers reflects a "deliberate indifference" to the constitutional rights of individuals. 

 

Exhibits

1. Video of the interaction between Ms. Jefferson and Officer Gregory Huntington

 

 

 

Witness List

1. N/A

 

_______________________________________________

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 29 day of April, 2025 by:

 

/s/ Juan Tzompaxtle
Juan Tzompaxtle

Edited April 29 by Kotwica

[Kotwica]

(( Proof of service filed with the Clerk of Court via e-file:


))

 

 

[elgreco]

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF SAN ANDREAS COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS CIVIL DIVISION     MICHELLE JEFFERSON,   Plaintiff,           v.         LOS SANTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND OFFICER GREGORY HUNTINGTON   Defendants.                                                   Case No. 25-LSC-04119 ───────────── DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT ─────────────   Ibraheem A. Davis, State Bar No. 081000067 [email protected] 1578 Station Ave, 2nd Floor Los Santos, San Andreas 90071 179-9901   Attorney for Defendant LOS SANTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS     I.       INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. II.      JURISDICTION................................................................................................................ III.     STATEMENT OF THE CASE......................................................................................... IV.     STANDARD OF REVIEW............................................................................................... V.      LEGAL ARGUMENT.......................................................................................................           A.      No Constitutional Violation Under First Amendment...................           B.      Officer's Huntington's Statements Were Reasonable Scene Control Measure........           C.      Qualified Immunity Bars Plaintiff's Claim..............................................................           D.      No Monell Liability Exists......................................................................................           E.      Plaintiff's Claims for Punitive Damages is Unsupported......................................... VI.    CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................     I.       INTRODUCTION ᅠᅠ  Defendant Los Santos Police Department ("LSPD") respectfully submits this Answer to the Complaint filed by Plaintiff Michelle Jefferson. Plaintiff alleges that her constitutional rights were violated during an interaction with Officer Gregory Huntington on April 27, 2025. She claims Officer Huntington unlawfully threatened her with arrest while she was filming a police traffic stop in public.   The allegations are without merit. The undisputed facts show that Plaintiff was not arrested, detained, or physically restrained. At all times, Plaintiff remained free to record the incident and did in fact continue filming. The officer's verbal instructions, prompted by Plaintiff's verbal provocation and physical proximity to the officers, were standard lawful crowd control measures issued for scene safety.   To the extent that any misunderstanding or overly direct statement were made by Officer Huntington, it should be noted that he is no longer employed by the Los Santos Police Department. He voluntarily resigned from the Department shortly after this incident, and any actions taken were not endorsed by the Department's policies or training.   Accordingly, there was no violation of clearly established constitutional rights, no chilling of Plaintiff's speech, and no policy, practice, or deliberate indifference attributable to the LSPD. Plaintiff's claims fail both legally and factually and should be dismissed with prejudice.   II.       JURISDICTION ᅠᅠ  This Court has jurisdiction under the San Andreas Constitution and the Code of Civil Procedure, including but not limited to Code Civ. Proc. § 410.10 and 42 U.S.C § 1983.   III.       STATEMENT OF THE CASE ᅠᅠ  On April 27, 2025, Plaintiff Michelle Jefferson approached Los Santos Police Officer Gregory Huntington during an ongoing traffic stop involving another individual. Plaintiff began filming the police activity from a close distance, which she has  a constitutional right to do. However, the interaction escalated when Plaintiff directed verbal insults at the officer, calling him a 'disrespectful punk'.   Officer Huntington responded shortly after by saying, 'Okay', and instructing Plaintiff to 'back off', a command consistent with Police Protocols for maintaining scene integrity and officer safety. Plaintiff then asked, 'You got something to say?' to which Officer Huntington replied, 'Seriously', and then, 'I'll arrest you on God'. Plaintiff asserted she was on a public street and continued to provoke the officer, counting down 'Five, Four, Three, Two, One' when warned to step back. Officer Huntington disengaged and walked away after receiving a call on his radio, stating 'You are a lucky woman...or man'. He then ran to his patrol vehicle, likely in response to a higher-priority call.   At no point was Plaintiff physically restrained, arrested, or ordered to cease filming. She continued to record and remained at liberty throughout the encounter. Officer Huntington's verbal commands did not result in any physical enforcement or retaliation. His conduct while possible stern in tone, was situational and not a violation of Plaintiff's rights.     IV.       STANDARD OF REVIEW ᅠᅠ  In ruling on a motion to dismiss or for summary judgement in a § 1983 case, the court must determine whether the alleged facts, take in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, establish a constitutional violation. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001).     V.       LEGAL ARGUMENT ᅠᅠ  A. No Constitutional Violation Under the First Amendment       Plaintiff's claim rests on the assertion that her right to record police officers was infringed. The First Amendment does protect the right to record public officials in public spaces. However, this right is no absolute. Courts have held that reasonable restrictions can be imposed to ensure the safety and prevent obstruction. See Gilk v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78, 84 (1st Cir. 2011); Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995). Here, Plaintiff was never told to stop recording. Instead, she was instructed to move back, a permissible directive to avoid interfering with police duties. The video transcript demonstrated that Plaintiff's ability to record was never restricted.   ᅠᅠ  B. Officer Huntington's Statements Were Reasonable Scene Control Measures           The commands to 'back off'  and 'stop interacting with the police' are consistent with law enforcement practices for maintaining control during field operations. In Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S 104 (1972), the Supreme Court held that individual do not have an unfettered right to remain at the scene of an arrest if instructed to disperse. Plaintiff's close physical presence and confrontational tone warranted Officer Huntington's response. His remarks were proportionate to the situation and did not exceed constitutional bounds.     ᅠᅠ  C. Qualified Immunity Bars Plaintiff's Claim           Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability unless they violate clearly established constitutional rights. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S 800 (1982); Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S 194 (2001). Even if Officer Huntington's conduct were deemed borderline, the law was not clearly established in April 2025 such that any reasonable officer would know that issuing a verbal warning to a disruptive bystander during a police stop would constitute a First Amendment violation. See Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S 635 (1987).   ᅠᅠ  D. No Monell Liability Exists           Under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S 658 (1978), municipalities cannot be held liable under § 1983 unless the alleged constitutional violation was caused by policy, custom, or official act. Plaintiff has presented no evidence of any LSPD policy or custom that condones the conduct alleged. On the contrary, Officer Huntington is no longer with the Los Santos Police Department, and his conduct was not ratified by any supervisor or Department policy. There is no factual basis for Monell liability.     ᅠᅠ  E. Plaintiff's Claim for Punitive Damages is Unsupported           Punitive damages are not recoverable against municipalities. See City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S 247 (1981). Το pursue punitive damages against Officer Huntington in his individual capacity, Plaintiff must prove malicious, wanton, or oppressive conduct. See Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S 30 (1983). Here, no such conduct is present. Officer Huntington issued verbal commands in a tense situation and ultimately disengaged. There was no physical contact, seizure or escalation beyond words. His actions were defensive, not retaliatory.   VI.       CONCLUSION Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted. The record shows no deprivation of constitutional rights. Defendant respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the Complaint with prejudice and grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.       DATED:  May 01, 2025                                                          By:       /s/ Ibraheem A. Davis                                                       Ibraheem A. Davis                                                                                     Chief Counsel                                                                        LOS SANTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT

[Justitiae]

** The court filing is accepted and the clerk assigns docket number 25-LSC-04119; the Honorable Nicholas C. Mendez, Presiding

[Kotwica]

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF SAN ANDREAS

COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS

CIVIL DIVISION

   

MICHELLE JEFFERSON,   Plaintiff,           v.         LOS SANTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND OFFICER GREGORY HUNTINGTON   Defendants.

 

Case No. 25-LSC-04119

─────────────

RESPONSE BRIEF IN REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S ANSWER

AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

─────────────

 

Juan Tzompaxtle, State Bar No. 1483094

Los Santos, San Andreas 90071

 

Attorney for Defendant MICHELLE JEFFERSON

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

I.      PRIOR RESTRAINT UPON PLAINTIFF’S SPEECH.............................................................................................................

II.     NO ENTITLEMENT TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.........................................................................................

III.     MONELL LIABILITY AND SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY EXCEPTION...............................................................................................

IV.      ENTITLEMENT TO PUNITIVE DAMAGES.......................................................................................................

V.      RIGHT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT.......................................................................................................

VI.    CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................

 

1. PRIOR RESTRAINT UPON PLAINTIFF’S SPEECH

 

Defendant Los Santos Police Department implies numerous times that because no arrest was made there is no constitutional violation. However, the mere threat of an arrest is itself prior restraint upon a person’s freedom of speech, including when that speech is vulgar or offensive. Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931); Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U. S. 415, 402 U. S. 419 (1971); Cohen v. San Andreas, 403 U.S. 15 (1971); Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U. S. 665, 322 U. S. 673-674 (1944) ("[o]ne of the prerogatives of American citizenship is the right to criticize public men and measures - and that means not only informed and responsible criticism, but the freedom to speak foolishly and without moderation."). Officer Huntington’s speech inordinately chilled Plaintiff’s speech by placing her on notice that continuing her speech would cause her to become subject to arrest. He further implied a threat that continuing to record the traffic stop in progress may subject her to arrest, presumably for Obstruction of Justice. However, such an arrest would have been in flagrant violation of the order imparted in Mendoza v. Los Santos Police Department, 25-LSC-04111, decided less than one month ago in this court. Accordingly, a clearly-established right has been violated by the conduct of Officer Huntington who represents duly Defendant Los Santos Police Department.

 

2. NO ENTITLEMENT TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY

 

Defendant Los Santos Police Department represents that under Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S 800 (1982), there must be a violation of a clearly established constitutional right in order for this court to waive qualified immunity. However, this court must also evaluate such facts in a light that is most favorable to the plaintiff in this action. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S 194 (2001). In review of the facts, this court will find that the actions of Officer Huntington did in fact violate the clearly-established constitutional right to both record officers, including from a close distance that is not physically obstructive, and to speak freely, including where such speech is vulgar or offensive. Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 840 F. Supp. 784 (W.D. Wash. 1993); Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971); Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U. S. 665, 322 U. S. 673-674 (1944); Mendoza v. Los Santos Police Department, 25 S.A. 1d. 4111.

 

Plaintiff’s actions were not physically obstructive to the actions of Officer Huntington because she did not directly get in the way of an action Huntington was attempting to perform. Her actions of recording the police did not physically prevent the officer from performing his duties, as evidenced by the fact that he completed the objective of the traffic stop at hand without any referenceable issue. As such, her activities are consistent with existing and widely-accepted precedent concerning the recording of police in public. See also Fordyce; Gilk v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78, 84 (1st Cir. 2011).

Speech tiself cannot be obstructive because each officer presumably has the physical and mental ability to ignore speech. Further, speech itself cannot subject one to arrest except where such speech crosses the line into "fighting words" such as threats to harm. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942). Speech is a core tenant of American society and the public enjoys the right to speak freely in criticism of the government. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). Subjective enforcement of laws based on the content of one's speech is specifically prohibited by existing precedent - such enforcement can only be in response to a legitimate time, manner, and place restrictions and not because such speech is deemed offensive. National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo, 602 U.S. ___ (2024); Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (2000).

Officer Huntington violated clearly established law in both his prior restraint upon the Plaintiff's speech by threatening arrest for Plaintiff's vulgar speech and also by implying a threat of arrest for recording the traffic stop from a "close distance." 

 

3. MONELL LIABILITY AND SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY EXCEPTION

 

Defendant Los Santos Police Department argues that Monell liability does not apply here because “no evidence of any LSPD policy or custom that condones the conduct alleged” and “[Officer Huntington’s] conduct was not ratified by any supervisor or Department policy”. However, Monell liability does not only bind in the case of policy or custom but the lack thereof as well. In the vacuum of policymaking and adequate training, employees are free to make their own decisions that may well be in flagrant violation of law or tangentially in violation of existing policies despite such policies not directly addressing the conduct. Defendant Los Santos Police Department is therefore required to have established policy, or at least adequate training, on matters as crucial as constitutional rights. Such policy-making need not be extensive documentation in a departmental manual, but potentially even as minimal as policy guidance documents or required reading for officers as a means of plausible deniability. Defendant has done none of this and therefore has not adequately trained their officers. Following the decision in Mendoza, Defendant should have taken concrete steps to inform officers of the decision and should have created documentation to guide their officers in abiding by the injunction therein. They did not. Resultantly, Defendant’s officers have violated the injunction here, and in other cases that are currently pending before this court, and therefore bear Monell liability.

 

Defendant Los Santos Police Department is exempted from receiving sovereign immunity under Section 3(A) of the San Andreas Sovereign Immunity Act of 2018, which states: “state agencies aren't directly responsible for the actions of their employees when they have taken reasonable steps to ensure the employees actions were legal, such as proper and consistent training and policy which upholds rule of law and legal standards”. As previously discussed, Defendant has not taken reasonable steps to ensure their employees’ actions were legal because they have neither held proper, consistent training nor created policy upholding the rule of law as established in Mendoza, Fordyce, and Glik.

 

4. ENTITLEMENT TO PUNITIVE DAMAGES

Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages under San Andreas Code of Civil Procedure § 3294 because there is ample evidence of malice. Malice, as defined in the preceding section, is “conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others”. Officer Huntington’s actions caused injury by means of a chilling effect upon her free speech rights, and his actions were carried out with willful disregard of a right that has been clearly established. Mendoza, supra.

 

5. RIGHT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 

Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment under Rule 3.1350 because there is no genuine dispute of material fact, only legal argument. Plaintiff moves therefor.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Juan Tzompaxtle

Attorney for Plaintiff

[elgreco]

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF SAN ANDREAS COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS CIVIL DIVISION     MICHELLE JEFFERSON,   Plaintiff,           v.         LOS SANTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND OFFICER GREGORY HUNTINGTON   Defendants.                                                   Case No. 25-LSC-04119 ───────────── DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AND CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT ─────────────   Ibraheem A. Davis, State Bar No. 081000067 [email protected] 1578 Station Ave, 2nd Floor Los Santos, San Andreas 90071 179-9901   Attorney for Defendant LOS SANTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS     I.       INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. II.      JURISDICTION................................................................................................................ III.     STATEMENT OF FACTS & RESPONSES TO SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS................. A. Undisputed Facts........................................................................................................... B. Plaintiff's Allegations and Defendants' Responses........................................................ IV.     AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES............................................................................................ V.    CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................     I.       INTRODUCTION ᅠᅠ  Defendant Los Santos Police Department ("LSPD"), by and through counsel, respectfully submits this Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgement and submits a Cross-Motion For Summary Judgement.   Plaintiff Michelle Jefferson's Complaint alleges that Officer Gregory Huntington violated her First Amendment rights by issuing a threat of arrest and ordering her to cease interaction while she recorded a lawful traffic stop. These allegations, however, rest on a fundamental misunderstanding of both the facts and the contours of constitutional law.   First, the incident at issue occurred against the backdrop of this Court's recent Mendoza decision, which expressly recognized the right to record police activity in public spaces. In direct response to Mendoza, LSPD issued a department-wide memorandum on April 21, 2025, days before the encounter, reaffirming officers' duty to respect constitutional rights, detailing permissible safety-based distance limitations, and prohibiting threats or arrests for lawful recording. All sworn personnel, including Officer Huntington, electronically acknowledged this guidance.   Second, on April 27, 2025, Jefferson approaches Officer Huntington at an approximate distance of two to three feet, well within an unsafe proximity given the high-traffic environment, and loudly insulted him. Officer Huntington responded verbally, first requesting that she "back off" for safety reasons and then warning "I'll arrest you on God" when she refused. Importantly, Jefferson remained unrestrained, continued filming without interruption, and audibly counted down in defiance, demonstrating the absence of any chilling effect on her speech.   Third, LSPD's swift issuance of the April 21 memorandum and Officer Huntington's subsequent voluntary resignation on April 28, 2025, underscore that his conduct was neither sanctioned by departmental policy nor indicative of a patter of indifference. Thus, not only did no constitutional violation occur, but there also exists no basis for municipal liability or punitive relief. Based on these facts and controlling precedent, including Colten v. Kentucky, Glik v. Cunniffe, and Saucier v. Katz, Defendants respectfully request that the Court deny Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgement and grant Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgement.     II.       JURISDICTION ᅠᅠ  This Court has jurisdiction under the San Andreas Constitution and the Code of Civil Procedure, including but not limited to Code Civ. Proc. § 410.10 and 42 U.S.C § 1983.      III.       STATEMENT OF FACTS & RESPONSES TO SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS ᅠᅠ  A. Undisputed Facts 1. Traffic Stop Location and Conditions On April 27, 2025, Officer Huntington conducted a routine traffic stop on Artesia Avenue near Altura Street. This area is densely populated with both vehicles, pedestrians as well as increased gang activity, creating potential safety hazards if unauthorized persons approach too closely. 2. Plaintiff's Proximity and Recording Jefferson approached from the sidewalk, positioning her smartphone within two to three feet of Huntington's torso. She loudly directed derogatory language at him, calling him a "disrespectful punk", while continuing to record.   3. Verbal Commands by Officer Huntington Video and transcript show Huntington first responding "okay", then stating, "You have to back off". When Jefferson responded "You got something to say?", Huntington replied "Seriously". Upon her defiant "Try me", the officer warned, "I'll arrest you on God". These directives were verbal only and issued in the interest of officer and public safety. 4. Continued Filming and Defiance Un-arrested and unimpeded, Jefferson audibly counted "Five, Four, Three...", to mock the threat, then maintained her recording.   5. Officer Disengagement A radio transmission interrupted; Huntington stated, "You are a lucky person", and promptly went towards his patrol vehicle for an urgent call, leaving the site without any physical enforcement or follow-up.   6. No Physical Restraint At no time was Jefferson handcuffed, detained, or deprived of her equipment. She freely left the scene once Huntington departed.   7. April 21, 2025 Constitutional Rights Memorandum After Mendoza, Chief Andrew Antonelli issued a "Constitutional Rights" memorandum summarizing: a) The constitutional right to record law enforcement in public b) Permissible safety directives requiring reasonable distance c) Prohibition on arrest for lawful recording absent interference All sworn personnel electronically acknowledged receipt.   8. Officer Huntington's Resignation Huntington voluntarily resigned effective April 28, 2025   B. Plaintiff's Allegations and Defendant's Responses Paragraph 1: Admitted that Jefferson recorded on April 27, 2025. Admitted that recording is protected activity. Denied that any constitutional right was interfered with. Paragraph 2: Denied. Huntington's instructions were narrowly tailored, content-neutral safety measures consistent with Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S 103. The threat of arrest was conditional and never effectuated. Paragraph 2: Admitted that § 1983 does not require formal arrest (Barna v. Bd. of Sch. Directors), but denied any deprivation occurred. Paragraph 4: Denied. No punitive-damages basis exists against the municipality (Newport v. Fact Concerts, 453 U.S 247) or the officer who displayed no malice or reckless disregard (Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S 30) Paragraph 4: Denied. LSPD's prompt issuance of the April 21 memorandum negates any inference of deliberate indifference required for a Monell claim (Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S 51; Pembaur v. Cincinnati, 475 U.S 469)     IV.       AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ᅠᅠ  1. Failure to State a Claim The Complaint fails to allege facts constituting a constitutional violation. Jefferson's recording was uninterrupted and no enforceable threat materialized. 2. Qualified Immunity Officer Huntington is protected under Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S 800, unless his actions violated a clearly established right; no such precedent exists for narrowly tailored safety warnings during a traffic stop.  3. No Monell Liability LSPD cannot be held liable absent policy, custom or deliberate indifference. The April 21 memorandum constitutes valid policy guidance. 4. No Respondeat Superior Municipal liability under § 1983 does not extend to respondeat superior claims. 5. No Constitutional Violation Huntington's safety-based instructions were lawful. 6. No Causation Any alleged injury was not proximately cause by Defendants 7. Adequate Training LSPD's training materials and April 21 Memorandum demonstrate comprehensive First Amendment instruction. 8. No Chilling Effect Jefferson's continue filming and verbal defiance confirm absence of any chilling effect (Mendocino Environmental Ctr. 192 F.3d 1283). 9. Mootness Officer Huntington's resignation renders injunctive relief moot (Lyons, 461 U.S 95) 10. Punitive Damages Barred Punitive damages are barred against municipalities and require high culpability against individuals (Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S 30) 11. Plaintiff's Contributory Conduct Plaintiff's own provocative behavior justified Officer Huntington's narrow directives.   V.       CONCLUSION ᅠᅠ  WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully pray that this Court: 1. DENY Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgement in its entirety; 2. GRANT Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgement; 3. DISMISS Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice; 4. AWARD Defendants' costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees; and 5. GRANT Any further relief the Court deems just and proper     DATED:  May 14, 2025                                                          By:       /s/ Ibraheem A. Davis                                                       Ibraheem A. Davis                                                                                     Chief Counsel                                                                        LOS SANTOS POLICE DEPARTMEN

[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. ))