25-LSC-04120 – Anderson v. Los Santos Police Department and Two Unknown Police Officers of the Los Santos Police Department

[Tungsten]

SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS

CIVIL DIVISION

 

Case Name: WILLIAM ANDERSON v. LOS SANTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT and TWO UNKNOWN POLICE OFFICERS OF THE LOS SANTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT

Plaintiff Attorney: Jacob E. Rabinowitz

 

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET

_______________________________________________

 

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

 

Personal Torts

[ ] Assault, battery, or unlawful contact

[X] 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

[X] Abuse of process

[ ] Malicious prosecution

[ ] Alienation of affections

 

Business Torts

[ ] Fraud

[ ] Tortious interference

[ ] Conspiracy

[ ] Restraint of trade

[ ] Passing off

 

Contracts

[X] Breach of Contract

[ ] Collections

 

Judicial Review

[ ] Denial or Revocation of Business License

[X] Denial or Revocation of Firearms License

 

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

• Compensatory damages in the amount of $140,000, broken down as follows:

  • Criminal charges and difficulties with employment as a security guard and lost wages following therefrom amounting to approximately $30,000 per night for two nights, totaling $60,000 in lost wages;

  • Wrongful arrest and imprisonment, resulting in significant emotional distress arising from confinement;

  • Seizure of a firearm and ammunition jointly valued at approximately $25,000;

  • Seizure of a license to purchase a firearm, resulting in effective loss of application fees amounting to $10,000;

  • Seizure of a license to carry a concealed weapon, resulting in effective loss of application fees amounting to $25,000, and;

  • Seizure of a guard card license, resulting in effective loss of application fees amounting to $20,000.

• Special damages in the amount of $100,000, broken down as follows:

  • Billing rate for services rendered by the law firm Rabinowitz and Sons, P.C., at $20,000 per billable day, preemptively estimated at approximately 5 billable days, totaling to $100,000.

• Punitive damages sought in an amount deemed appropriate by the court for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and deprivation of civil rights, with a request of at least $1,500,000.

• Additional prayer for relief:

  • Restoration of License to Purchase a Firearm, License to Carry a Concealed Weapon, and Guard Card License;

  • No contact order between the plaintiff in this action and the arresting officer for a period of 6 months.

 

 

_______________________________________________

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 April, 2025 by:

 

/S/ JACOB E. RABINOWITZ
Jacob E. Rabinowitz

Attorney for Plaintiff

Signing on behalf of self and plaintiff William Anderson

[Tungsten]

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS, COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS

 

 

WILLIAM ANDERSON,

Plaintiff

 

v.

 

LOS SANTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendant

 

 

 

COMPLAINT

 

Bench Trial Demand

 

1. Pursuant to San Andreas Code of Civil Procedure § 631(f)1, Plaintiff waives his right to a Jury Trial and demands a bench trial in the above-entitled action concerning the underlying state criminal action People of the State of San Andreas v. William Anderson, disposition pending, in the Criminal Division of the Superior Court for the County of Los Santos.

 

Jurisdiction

 

2. This court has jurisdiction over plaintiff's state and federal claims pursuant to San Andreas Code of Civil Procedure § 410.10. This court has supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state claim of deprivation of civil rights under color of law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 and San Andreas Code of Civil Procedure § 52.1.

(( Actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are typically federal claims, however we do not have a federal court on LS-RP so they must be introduced as state claims. ))

 

3. Venue in the Superior Court of San Andreas, County of Los Santos, Civil Division is proper pursuant to San Andreas Code of Civil Procedure § 395.5.

 

Parties

 

4. Plaintiff William Anderson is an individual who resides at 1485 Market Street in Los Santos, San Andreas.

 

5. Defendant Los Santos Police Department is a municipal corporation headquartered at 1 Pershing Square in Los Santos, San Andreas.

 

Facts

 

6. Plaintiff is a lawful holder of a License to Purchase a Firearm ("PF License" or "PF"), License to Carry a Concealed Weapon ("CCW License" or "CCW"), and a San Andreas Guard Card ("GC License" or "GC").

 

7. On or about April 20th, 2025, Plaintiff was visiting a nightclub in the City of Los Santos when he was physically assaulted, unprovoked, by an unknown individual.

 

8. In response to being assaulted, Plaintiff defended himself physically using his hands. Security escorted the assaultive individual out and Plaintiff followed behind to give a statement to security in the hopes of having that individual formally trespassed.

 

9. The assaultive individual then engaged in an aggravated battery, a felony pursuant to San Andreas Penal Code § 110(a), against Plaintiff dealing continued and severe harm to him and causing him to fear for his life and bodily integrity.

 

10. In response to the continued and severe harm being inflicted upon him, and causing fear of death or serious bodily injury, Plaintiff drew his lawfully-possessed weapon and fired upon the individual. Plaintiff stood his ground in defending himself and gave no warning to the individual as he is not required to retreat by any statute of this state and doing so would risk additional injury or even possibly death by blunt physical force.

 

11. The assaultive individual was incapacitated but was not later pronounced deceased. According to Plaintiff's knowledge, the assaultive individual survived his injuries and is still walking the streets of Los Santos.

 

12. In response to the discharge of deadly force, the Los Santos Police Department responded to the location.

 

13. Without proper investigation, the responding officer(s) concluded that Plaintiff had committed multiple crimes and placed him under arrest. The responding officer(s) did not take the assaultive individual into custody.

 

14. The arresting officer(s) did not review CCTV footage, interview Plaintiff, or take witness testimony else they would have likely concluded that Plaintiff was being seriously assaulted and therefore in reasonable fear for his life or of serious bodily injury.

 

15. As an immediate result of this arrest, Plaintiff's PF License, CCW License, and GC License were all revoked; Plaintiff's firearm and ammunition were also seized. Plaintiff is now ineligible to purchase or carry a firearm and is not lawfully able to work as a security guard in the State of San Andreas.

 

16. As a proximate result of this arrest, Plaintiff has been denied a multitude of constitutionally-protected rights including his second amendment right to bear arms, fifth amendment right to due process under the law, sixth amendment right to a fair trial under the law, and fourteenth amendment right to equal protection under the laws of both this state and of the United States of America.

 

 

First Claim

 

42 U.S.C. § 1983; San Andreas Code of Civil Procedure § 52.1; San Andreas Constitution, Article 1 §§ 7, 13, and 17 – Against all defendants

 

17. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs by reference as if fully rewritten herein.

 

18. Defendants at all times relevant to this action were acting under color of state law. Defendants Two Unknown Officers of the Los Santos Police Department are both jointly and severally liable for their actions taken on behalf of Defendant Los Santos Police Department.

 

19. Defendant Los Santos Police Department unlawfully deprived Plaintiff of his right to due process, a fair trial, and to equal protection of the laws by arresting him without the necessary and proper degree of evidence to establish probable cause for arrest. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963); Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983). Under Illinois v. Gates, this court must apply a "totality of the circumstances" test when determining the presence of probable cause. Any arrest absent a warrant is de-facto unconstitutional unless probable cause can be shown. If this court determines, through the required test, that probable cause is not present then all following actions taken including, but not limited to, the seizure of Plaintiff's licenses, firearms, and ammunition are de-facto unconstitutional seizures as well.

 

20. Defendant Los Santos Police Department engaged in excessive force against Plaintiff through unlawful, warrantless arrest. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). Under Graham v. Connor, this court must apply an objective reasonableness standard with three prongs known as the "Graham factors": (1) the severity of the crime at issue; (2) whether the suspect was actively resisting or attempting to flee; (3) whether the suspect's actions pose an immediate threat to the officer or to others. Because the elements of the underlying crime of assault with a deadly weapon are not met on grounds of actus reus or mens rea, Plaintiff did not commit a crime. Therefore, the Graham test fails on the first prong as there is no severity where there is no crime.

 

20. Plaintiff William Anderson was not the initial aggressor of the conflict and himself engaged in self defense proportionate to the danger he was faced with. United States v. Peterson, 483 F.2d 1222 (D.C. Cir. 1973). Applying the non-binding but widely accepted standard established in United States v. Peterson, Plaintiff's actions were proportionate because he was being severely overpowered by the attacker and reasonably feared he may sustain serious bodily harm. Plaintiff need not match fists with fists – the purpose of a concealed weapon is to defend oneself from serious bodily harm up to and including death, and Plaintiff reasonably feared this because he was being repeatedly punched in his body and face.

 

21. Defendant Los Santos Police Department, and representatives thereof, engaged in a warrantless seizure of a firearm and ammunition belonging to and lawfully possessed by Plaintiff William Anderson, in violation of the Guidelines published by the Los Santos Police Department. See also Firearms Licensing Division, PF License Usage Regulations ("Must not be in possession of any firearms other than the ones they applied for"); Firearms Licensing Division, CCW License Usage Regulations ("Must not reveal their firearm unless an active threat to life is occurring or there is a clear and potential imminent threat to life which could be averted by revealing the CCW firearm. In the case of law enforcement arriving on scene or being on scene, the CCW holder must take care to comply with law enforcement orders").

 

22. Defendant Los Santos Police Department, and representatives thereof, engaged in a warrantless seizure of a PF License, CCW License, and GC License without lawful justification as described in Paragraph 22 above.

 

23. Defendant Los Santos Police Department is not entitled to sovereign immunity under the San Andreas Sovereign Immunity Act of 2018 due to an exemption under Section 3(A) therein, which reads (emphasis applied):

"Sovereign immunity does not apply when an employee commits any illegal or tortious action in accordance with his duty. It is the recognition that state agencies aren't directly responsible for the actions when they have taken reasonable steps to ensure the employees actions were legal, such as proper and consistent training and policy which upholds the rule of law and legal standards."

Defendant Los Santos Police Department did not adequately train their officers in the requirement of both reasonable articulable particularized suspicion (RAPS) as well as probable cause (PC) to support a warrantless arrest. Due to the lack of formal training in this area, defendant has failed to take reasonable steps to ensure legality of the employees actions.

 

24. Defendant Los Santos Police Department is not entitled to sovereign immunity under the San Andreas Sovereign Immunity Act of 2018 due to an exemption under Section 3(B)3 therein, which reads:

"[(B) Sovereign Immunity will either partially apply, or not apply at all, given one or multiple of following cases: ...] (3) In the case where the action(s) was committed by violating some defined legal standard or law, and that action was not in accordance to an established policy, the actor(s) may be held responsible. Sovereign immunity shall apply to the agency, but not its actor(s)."

Defendants Two Unknown Officers of the Los Santos Police Department violated a defined legal standard of the requirement of clear probable cause or a warrant of arrest to conduct a seizure by arrest of a person. Defendant Los Santos Police Department's failure to adequately train these officers gives rise to this exemption under Monell v. Department of Soc. Svcs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). This section states that sovereign immunity shall apply, however the agency is exempted from sovereign immunity for reasons described in Paragraph 23 and therefore may not receive it.

 

25. Defendant Los Santos Police Department is not entitled to sovereign immunity under the San Andreas Sovereign Immunity Act of 2018 due to an exemption under Section 3(B)5 therein, which reads:

"[(B) Sovereign Immunity will either partially apply, or not apply at all, given one or multiple of following cases: ...] (5) In the case where a wrongful act or omission shown that resulted in injury, the actor(s) may be held responsible and sovereign immunity shall not apply. Sovereign immunity shall apply to the agency."

Defendants Two Unknown Officers of the Los Santos Police Department inflicted legal injury upon Plaintiff by depriving him of his freedom and therefore of wages he would have reasonable earned as an employee of Roze Enterprise. His employment as a security guard was interrupted by the revocation of his Guard Card and he could not therefore lawfully work as a security guard at any of Roze Enterprise's client businesses. This deprivation of wages is an injury as defined in common law. This section states that sovereign immunity shall apply, however the agency is exempted from sovereign immunity for reasons described in Paragraph 23 and therefore may not receive it.

 

26. Plaintiff is entitled to compensation for the loss of his firearms and ammunition under Section 4(E) of the San Andreas Sovereign Immunity Act of 2018, which reads (emphasis applied):

"In any cases where sovereign immunity is waived, and compensation of items seized shall be granted, all firearms’ value shall not be added to the judgement, unless the claimant has legally obtained the appropriate licenses, legally obtained the firearms and the possession of such firearms is not prohibited by the San Andreas Penal Code, in which case they shall be returned their firearms or receive fair market value for legally obtaining such firearms."

 

27. Plaintiff is entitled to receive his PF, CCW, and GC Licenses back, or compensation therefore, under Section 4(F) of the San Andreas Sovereign Immunity Act of 2018, which reads:

"In any cases where sovereign immunity is waived, and compensation of items seized shall be granted, all narcotics’ value shall not be added to the judgement, unless they are legally prescribed to the claimant, in which case they shall receive fair market value for legally obtaining such medicine."

 

28. Plaintiff is entitled to the reversal of all criminal charges and full criminal acquittal for reasons described in Paragraph 20. Where the elements of a crime are not met, there is no probable cause; where there is no probable cause, there can be no criminal charges or arrest following therefrom.

 

 

Prayer for Relief

 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief:

 

A. On his first and only claim, a judgment for compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus reasonable attorney fees pursuant to San Andreas Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1030 and 1021.4, and return of or compensation for the loss of PF, CCW, and GC licenses arising from the events described in this complaint.

 

B. A bench trial on all issues;

 

C. An award of costs and expenses against the Defendants;

 

D. Reversal of all criminal charges stemming from the events described in this complaint;

 

E. Any and all other relief this court may deem appropriate.

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Jacob E. Rabinowitz

Attorney for Plaintiff  

 

 

[Tungsten]

** Proof of Service has been filed with the court clerk.

 

 

(( OOC Proof ))

[Tungsten]

** A subpoena has been filed in duplicate with the court clerk.

 

 

 

(( Sent to "Timothy Kempton" via LSPD Forums. Proof available upon request. ))

[Tungsten]

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF SAN ANDREAS COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS CIVIL DIVISION     WILLIAM ANDERSON,   Plaintiff,           v.         LOS SANTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.   Defendants.                                                   Case No. 25-LSC-04117 ───────────── MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS ─────────────   Jacob E. Rabinowitz, State Bar No. 081000067 [email protected] 1 Market Street Los Santos, San Andreas 90071 555-9999   Attorney for Defendant WILLIAM ANDERSON

BACKGROUND Defendant Los Santos Police Department was issued a Subpoena Duces Tecum on April 30th, 2025. As an attorney admitted to the bar and therefore an officer of the court, issuance of this subpoena is lawful under San Andreas Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1985–1987.3 (( Link )). This subpoena ordered production of the following discoverable items:   1. The arrest record of Mr. William Anderson from April 2025 that resulted in the revocation of his PF, CCW, and GC licenses, including the names of the arresting officers, their ranks, and their total number of months in service with the Los Santos Police Department; due May 5th, 2025 or 3 days before assigned court date (whichever is later).   2. Evidentiary record for the seizure of Mr. William Anderson's firearm and ammunition arising from the aforementioned arrest; due May 5th, 2025 or 3 days before the assigned court date (whichever is later).   3. Sworn affidavit summary of the Los Santos Police Department's policy on arrests arising from self-defense incidents and seizure of firearms arising therefrom; due May 5th, 2025 or 3 days before the assigned court date (whichever is later).   4. Sworn affidavit summary of the Los Santos Police Department's policy on the use of force, specifically around the level of force of "arrest"; due May 5th, 2025 or 3 days before the assigned court date (whichever is later).   5. Sworn affidavit summary of the Los Santos Police Department's policy on investigation of private claims, probable cause, and arrests without a warrant; due May 5th, 2025 or 3 days before the assigned court date (whichever is later).   Plaintiff and Defendant Los Santos Police Department entered into settlement negotiations on May 3rd, 2025. Plaintiff indicated that acceptable terms of a settlement would include restoration of Plaintiff's licenses to purchase a firearm, carry a concealed firearm, and act as a security guard (guard card). In addition, Plaintiff requested a sum of $100,000 in compensation; $50,000 for attorney's fees, and; commitment to issue formal admonishment to the involved officers. In consideration, Plaintiff offered to dismiss this action and to enter into non-disclosure, confidentiality, and mutual non-disparagement agreements.   Counsel for Plaintiff received a letter from Defendant Los Santos Police Department on May 4th, 2025 indicating a willingness to settle the matter out of court. The Los Santos Police Department offered a settlement of restoring the relevant weapons licenses; compensation of $100,000; attorney's fees of $50,000, and; issuance of a non-formal administrative admonishment of the involved officers. In consideration for this offer, the Los Santos Police Department demanded the same agreements as proposed by Plaintiff. Approximately 23 minutes later, Defendant Los Santos Police Department retracted their offer via email stating an unwillingness to settle. An email from Counsel for Plaintiff was already scheduled to be issued and therefore was sent, indicating acceptance of the offer, three minutes after the retraction. On May 9th, 2025, Counsel for Plaintiff transmitted a letter indicating an unwillingness to negotiate a settlement and an intent to pursue all legal remedies by proceeding to trial.   As stated in the subpoena, the due date for these items was May 5th, 2025 or 3 days before the assigned court date. Since no court date has been assigned, the due date of this subpoena defaults to May 5th, 2025. Defendant Los Santos Police Department has failed to produce the required discovery to comply with this lawful order of an officer of the court. Further, Defendant Los Santos Police Department has failed to submit a timely Motion to Quash to this court thereby relinquishing their right to quash the terms of the subpoena under San Andreas Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.140 (( Link )).   PROPOSED ORDER In light of Defendant Los Santos Police Department's failure to comply with the terms of a lawful order of this court by an attorney of record authorized to issue such order, Plaintiff proposes that this court issue the following orders:   An order to show cause issued to the Los Santos Police Department requiring production of a valid and lawful reason for non-compliance with the subpoena, or an order mandating production of the requested evidence and;   An order issuing sanctions to the attorney of record for the Los Santos Police Department, Ibraheem A. Davis, for failure to comply with the terms of a lawful order of this court issued by an attorney of record in this action.     Respectfully submitted,   /s/ Jacob E. Rabinowitz   JACOB EZEKIEL RABINOWITZ Attorney for Plaintiff William Anderson

[Tungsten]

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF SAN ANDREAS COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS CIVIL DIVISION     WILLIAM ANDERSON,   Plaintiff,           v.         LOS SANTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.   Defendants.                                                   Case No. 25-LSC-04117 ───────────── AMENDED COMPLAINT ─────────────   Jacob E. Rabinowitz, State Bar No. 081000067 [email protected] 2793 Sunset Avenue Los Santos, San Andreas 90071 555-9999   Attorney for Defendant WILLIAM ANDERSON

Bench Trial Demand   1. Pursuant to San Andreas Code of Civil Procedure § 631(f)1, Plaintiff waives his right to a Jury Trial and demands a bench trial in the above-entitled action concerning the underlying state criminal action People of the State of San Andreas v. William Anderson, disposition pending, in the Criminal Division of the Superior Court for the County of Los Santos.   Jurisdiction   2. This court has jurisdiction over plaintiff's state and federal claims pursuant to San Andreas Code of Civil Procedure § 410.10. This court has supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state claim of deprivation of civil rights under color of law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 and San Andreas Code of Civil Procedure § 52.1. (( Actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are typically federal claims, however we do not have a federal court on LS-RP so they must be introduced as state claims. ))   3. Venue in the Superior Court of San Andreas, County of Los Santos, Civil Division is proper pursuant to San Andreas Code of Civil Procedure § 395.5.   4. Plaintiff is entitled to submit a single amended complaint without leave of this court pursuant to San Andreas Code of Civil Procedure § 472.   Parties   5. Plaintiff William Anderson is an individual who resides at 1659 Market Street in Los Santos, San Andreas.   6. Defendant Los Santos Police Department is a municipal corporation headquartered at 1 Pershing Square in Los Santos, San Andreas.   Facts   7. Plaintiff is a lawful holder of a License to Purchase a Firearm ("PF License" or "PF"), License to Carry a Concealed Weapon ("CCW License" or "CCW"), and a San Andreas Guard Card ("GC License" or "GC").   8. On or about April 20th, 2025, Plaintiff was visiting a nightclub in the City of Los Santos when he was physically assaulted, unprovoked, by an unknown individual.   9. In response to being assaulted, Plaintiff defended himself physically using his hands. Security escorted the assaultive individual out and Plaintiff followed behind to give a statement to security in the hopes of having that individual formally trespassed.   10. The assaultive individual then engaged in an aggravated battery, a felony pursuant to San Andreas Penal Code § 110(a), against Plaintiff dealing continued and severe harm to him and causing him to fear for his life and bodily integrity.   11. In response to the continued and severe harm being inflicted upon him, and causing fear of death or serious bodily injury, Plaintiff drew his lawfully-possessed weapon and fired upon the individual. Plaintiff stood his ground in defending himself and gave no warning to the individual as he is not required to retreat by any statute of this state and doing so would risk additional injury or even possibly death by blunt physical force.   12. The assaultive individual was incapacitated but was not later pronounced deceased. According to Plaintiff's knowledge, the assaultive individual survived his injuries and is still walking the streets of Los Santos.   13. In response to the discharge of deadly force, the Los Santos Police Department responded to the location.   14. Without proper investigation, the responding officer(s) concluded that Plaintiff had committed multiple crimes and placed him under arrest. The responding officer(s) did not take the assaultive individual into custody.   15. The arresting officer(s) did not review CCTV footage, interview Plaintiff, or take witness testimony else they would have likely concluded that Plaintiff was being seriously assaulted and therefore in reasonable fear for his life or of serious bodily injury.   16. As an immediate result of this arrest, Plaintiff's PF License, CCW License, and GC License were all revoked; Plaintiff's firearm and ammunition were also seized. Plaintiff is now ineligible to purchase or carry a firearm and is not lawfully able to work as a security guard in the State of San Andreas.   17. As a proximate result of this arrest, Plaintiff has been denied a multitude of constitutionally-protected rights including his second amendment right to bear arms, fifth amendment right to due process under the law, sixth amendment right to a fair trial under the law, and fourteenth amendment right to equal protection under the laws of both this state and of the United States of America.     18. Defendant Los Santos Police Department was issued a Subpoena Duces Tecum on April 30th, 2025. As an attorney admitted to the bar and therefore an officer of the court, issuance of this subpoena is lawful under San Andreas Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1985–1987.3. This subpoena ordered production of the following discoverable items:   1. The arrest record of Mr. William Anderson from April 2025 that resulted in the revocation of his PF, CCW, and GC licenses, including the names of the arresting officers, their ranks, and their total number of months in service with the Los Santos Police Department; due May 5th, 2025 or 3 days before assigned court date (whichever is later).   2. Evidentiary record for the seizure of Mr. William Anderson's firearm and ammunition arising from the aforementioned arrest; due May 5th, 2025 or 3 days before the assigned court date (whichever is later).   3. Sworn affidavit summary of the Los Santos Police Department's policy on arrests arising from self-defense incidents and seizure of firearms arising therefrom; due May 5th, 2025 or 3 days before the assigned court date (whichever is later).   4. Sworn affidavit summary of the Los Santos Police Department's policy on the use of force, specifically around the level of force of "arrest"; due May 5th, 2025 or 3 days before the assigned court date (whichever is later).   5. Sworn affidavit summary of the Los Santos Police Department's policy on investigation of private claims, probable cause, and arrests without a warrant; due May 5th, 2025 or 3 days before the assigned court date (whichever is later).   19. Plaintiff and Defendant Los Santos Police Department entered into settlement negotiations on May 3rd, 2025. Plaintiff indicated that acceptable terms of a settlement would include restoration of Plaintiff's licenses to purchase a firearm, carry a concealed firearm, and act as a security guard (guard card). In addition, Plaintiff requested a sum of $100,000 in compensation; $50,000 for attorney's fees, and; commitment to issue formal admonishment to the involved officers. In consideration, Plaintiff offered to dismiss this action and to enter into non-disclosure, confidentiality, and mutual non-disparagement agreements.   20. Counsel for Plaintiff received a letter from Defendant Los Santos Police Department on May 4th, 2025 indicating a willingness to settle the matter out of court. The Los Santos Police Department offered a settlement of restoring the relevant weapons licenses; compensation of $100,000; attorney's fees of $50,000, and; issuance of a non-formal administrative admonishment of the involved officers. In consideration for this offer, the Los Santos Police Department demanded the same agreements as proposed by Plaintiff. Approximately 23 minutes later, Defendant Los Santos Police Department retracted their offer via email stating an unwillingness to settle. An email from Counsel for Plaintiff was already scheduled to be issued and therefore was sent, indicating acceptance of the offer, three minutes after the retraction. On May 9th, 2025, Counsel for Plaintiff transmitted a letter indicating an unwillingness to negotiate a settlement and an intent to pursue all legal remedies by proceeding to trial.   21. As stated in the subpoena, the due date for these items was May 5th, 2025 or 3 days before the assigned court date. Since no court date has been assigned, the due date of this subpoena defaults to May 5th, 2025. Defendant Los Santos Police Department has failed to produce the required discovery to comply with this lawful order of an officer of the court. Further, Defendant Los Santos Police Department has failed to submit a timely Motion to Quash to this court thereby relinquishing their right to quash the terms of the subpoena under San Andreas Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.140.   First Claim 42 U.S.C. § 1983; San Andreas Code of Civil Procedure § 52.1; San Andreas Constitution, Article 1 §§ 7, 13, and 17 – Against all defendants   22. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 7 through 21 by reference as if fully rewritten herein.   23. Defendants at all times relevant to this action were acting under color of state law. Defendants Two Unknown Officers of the Los Santos Police Department are both jointly and severally liable for their actions taken on behalf of Defendant Los Santos Police Department.   24. Defendant Los Santos Police Department unlawfully deprived Plaintiff of his right to due process, a fair trial, and to equal protection of the laws by arresting him without the necessary and proper degree of evidence to establish probable cause for arrest. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963); Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983). Under Illinois v. Gates, this court must apply a "totality of the circumstances" test when determining the presence of probable cause. Any arrest absent a warrant is de-facto unconstitutional unless probable cause can be shown. If this court determines, through the required test, that probable cause is not present then all following actions taken including, but not limited to, the seizure of Plaintiff's licenses, firearms, and ammunition are de-facto unconstitutional seizures as well.   25. Defendant Los Santos Police Department engaged in excessive force against Plaintiff through unlawful, warrantless arrest. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). Under Graham v. Connor, this court must apply an objective reasonableness standard with three prongs known as the "Graham factors": (1) the severity of the crime at issue; (2) whether the suspect was actively resisting or attempting to flee; (3) whether the suspect's actions pose an immediate threat to the officer or to others. Because the elements of the underlying crime of assault with a deadly weapon are not met on grounds of actus reus or mens rea, Plaintiff did not commit a crime. Therefore, the Graham test fails on the first prong as there is no severity where there is no crime.   26. Plaintiff William Anderson was not the initial aggressor of the conflict and himself engaged in self defense proportionate to the danger he was faced with. United States v. Peterson, 483 F.2d 1222 (D.C. Cir. 1973). Applying the non-binding but widely accepted standard established in United States v. Peterson, Plaintiff's actions were proportionate because he was being severely overpowered by the attacker and reasonably feared he may sustain serious bodily harm. Plaintiff need not match fists with fists – the purpose of a concealed weapon is to defend oneself from serious bodily harm up to and including death, and Plaintiff reasonably feared this because he was being repeatedly punched in his body and face.   27. Defendant Los Santos Police Department, and representatives thereof, engaged in a warrantless seizure of a firearm and ammunition belonging to and lawfully possessed by Plaintiff William Anderson, in violation of the Guidelines published by the Los Santos Police Department. See also Firearms Licensing Division, PF License Usage Regulations ("Must not be in possession of any firearms other than the ones they applied for"); Firearms Licensing Division, CCW License Usage Regulations ("Must not reveal their firearm unless an active threat to life is occurring or there is a clear and potential imminent threat to life which could be averted by revealing the CCW firearm. In the case of law enforcement arriving on scene or being on scene, the CCW holder must take care to comply with law enforcement orders").   28. Defendant Los Santos Police Department, and representatives thereof, engaged in a warrantless seizure of a PF License, CCW License, and GC License without lawful justification as described in Paragraph 22 above.   29. Defendant Los Santos Police Department is not entitled to sovereign immunity under the San Andreas Sovereign Immunity Act of 2018 due to an exemption under Section 3(A) therein, which reads (emphasis applied): "Sovereign immunity does not apply when an employee commits any illegal or tortious action in accordance with his duty. It is the recognition that state agencies aren't directly responsible for the actions when they have taken reasonable steps to ensure the employees actions were legal, such as proper and consistent training and policy which upholds the rule of law and legal standards." Defendant Los Santos Police Department did not adequately train their officers in the requirement of both reasonable articulable particularized suspicion (RAPS) as well as probable cause (PC) to support a warrantless arrest. Due to the lack of formal training in this area, defendant has failed to take reasonable steps to ensure legality of the employees actions.   30. Defendant Los Santos Police Department is not entitled to sovereign immunity under the San Andreas Sovereign Immunity Act of 2018 due to an exemption under Section 3(B)3 therein, which reads: "[(B) Sovereign Immunity will either partially apply, or not apply at all, given one or multiple of following cases: ...] (3) In the case where the action(s) was committed by violating some defined legal standard or law, and that action was not in accordance to an established policy, the actor(s) may be held responsible. Sovereign immunity shall apply to the agency, but not its actor(s)." Defendants Two Unknown Officers of the Los Santos Police Department violated a defined legal standard of the requirement of clear probable cause or a warrant of arrest to conduct a seizure by arrest of a person. Defendant Los Santos Police Department's failure to adequately train these officers gives rise to this exemption under Monell v. Department of Soc. Svcs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). This section states that sovereign immunity shall apply, however the agency is exempted from sovereign immunity for reasons described in Paragraph 23 and therefore may not receive it.   31. Defendant Los Santos Police Department is not entitled to sovereign immunity under the San Andreas Sovereign Immunity Act of 2018 due to an exemption under Section 3(B)5 therein, which reads: "[(B) Sovereign Immunity will either partially apply, or not apply at all, given one or multiple of following cases: ...] (5) In the case where a wrongful act or omission shown that resulted in injury, the actor(s) may be held responsible and sovereign immunity shall not apply. Sovereign immunity shall apply to the agency." Defendants Two Unknown Officers of the Los Santos Police Department inflicted legal injury upon Plaintiff by depriving him of his freedom and therefore of wages he would have reasonable earned as an employee of Roze Enterprise. His employment as a security guard was interrupted by the revocation of his Guard Card and he could not therefore lawfully work as a security guard at any of Roze Enterprise's client businesses. This deprivation of wages is an injury as defined in common law. This section states that sovereign immunity shall apply, however the agency is exempted from sovereign immunity for reasons described in Paragraph 23 and therefore may not receive it.   32. Plaintiff is entitled to compensation for the loss of his firearms and ammunition under Section 4(E) of the San Andreas Sovereign Immunity Act of 2018, which reads (emphasis applied): "In any cases where sovereign immunity is waived, and compensation of items seized shall be granted, all firearms’ value shall not be added to the judgement, unless the claimant has legally obtained the appropriate licenses, legally obtained the firearms and the possession of such firearms is not prohibited by the San Andreas Penal Code, in which case they shall be returned their firearms or receive fair market value for legally obtaining such firearms."   33. Plaintiff is entitled to receive his PF, CCW, and GC Licenses back, or compensation therefore, under Section 4(F) of the San Andreas Sovereign Immunity Act of 2018, which reads: "In any cases where sovereign immunity is waived, and compensation of items seized shall be granted, all narcotics’ value shall not be added to the judgement, unless they are legally prescribed to the claimant, in which case they shall receive fair market value for legally obtaining such medicine."   34. Plaintiff is entitled to the reversal of all criminal charges and full criminal acquittal for reasons described in Paragraph 20. Where the elements of a crime are not met, there is no probable cause; where there is no probable cause, there can be no criminal charges or arrest following therefrom.   Second Claim Tortious Breach of Contract   35. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 7 through 21 by reference as if fully rewritten herein.   36. A contract consists of five elements: offer, acceptance, capacity, consideration, and legality.   37. Plaintiff's communication of a settlement proposal to Defendant Los Santos Police Department constitutes an offer in tort. The negotiable aspects of the proposal outlined areas in which Plaintiff was willing to be flexible in the offer.   38. Defendant Los Santos Police Department communicated an acceptance of the offer in writing, thereby constituting an acceptance in tort.   39. Plaintiff has the capacity to enter into such a contract because neither Plaintiff nor his counsel has been duly adjudged mentally incompetent. Lucy v. Zehmer, 196 Va. 493 (1954); Sparrow v. Demonico, 960 N.E.2d 296 (2011); Smalley v. Baker, 262 Cal.App.2d 824,69 Cal.Rptr. 521. Neither has demonstrated personal or legal incompetence, therefore their capacity to contract is valid and unvoidable.   40. Defendant Los Santos Police Department has the capacity to enter into such a contract because it is a municipal corporation that is not capable of being adjudged incompetent to contract. Its representative, Ibraheem A. Davis, has not been adjudged legally incompetent in his practice as an attorney. Therefore, the capacity of Defendant Los Santos Police Department is valid and unvoidable. Oubre v. Entergy Operations, Inc., 522 U.S. 422 (1998).   41. Both Plaintiff and Defendant in their communication expressed consideration for the other, detailing exact terms to be exchanged. Defendant accepted the terms of consideration in part and amended one portion of the terms which was negotiable in the proposed settlement agreement.   42. The proposed settlement agreement complies with all laws of this state and of the United States of America.   43. With all five elements of a valid contract being met – offer, acceptance, consideration, capacity, and legality – the exchange of terms between both Plaintiff and Defendant constitutes a valid and binding, enforceable contract.   44. The withdrawal of the settlement agreement by Defendant Los Santos Police Department only minutes after its offer constitutes a breach of that contract because the contract was already accepted and enforceable from the time it was transmitted. The negotiable items indicated that Plaintiff was willing to be flexible and therefore acceptance by the Plaintiff is automatic.   45. The actions of Defendant Los Santos Police Department constitute a material breach of the contract between Plaintiff and Defendant. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to recovery and enforcement of the settlement agreement as offered by Defendant Los Santos Police Department.     Prayer for Relief   WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief:   A. On his first claim, a judgment for compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus reasonable attorney fees pursuant to San Andreas Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1030 and 1021.4, and return of or compensation for the loss of PF, CCW, and GC licenses arising from the events described in this complaint.   B. On his second claim, a judgment enforcing the terms of the settlement agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant.   C. If no judgment effectuating enforcement of the settlement agreement described in his second claim is issued, Plaintiff prays for a bench trial on all issues, an award of costs and expenses against the Defendants, and; reversal of all criminal charges stemming from the events described in this complaint.   D. Any and all other relief this court may deem appropriate.     Respectfully submitted,   Jacob E. Rabinowitz Attorney for Plaintiff

[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. ))