Thornton v. Daly City
| Decision Date | 15 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 19-cv-07638-HSG |
| Parties | CURTIS THORNTON, Plaintiff, v. DALY CITY, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Pending before the Court are Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiff's first amended complaint ("FAC"). Dkt. Nos. 18, 21, 22, 28, 43. The Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without oral argument and the matter is deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons detailed below, the Court GRANTS IN PART the motions to dismiss.
The FAC alleges the following facts. Plaintiff's childhood friend, Joshua Godinez, worked at Gate Gourmet, and Plaintiff "observed" that Godinez would "be held" at work "for longer than he intended" and "complain[ed] of receiving no payment." FAC ¶¶ 34, 38-39. Plaintiff later inquired about employment at Gate Gourmet, was hired in July 2018, and was "assigned to work in a freezer manufacturing meals overnight, supervised in large part by [Margaret] Parker." Id. at ¶ 47. He "observed that the facility was a locked down building with access controls," that a manager was required to clock out production workers, and that "managers entered fraudulent information into the time clock recording system." Id. at ¶ 48. Within his first week at Gate Gourmet, Plaintiff "observed Miss Parker coercing reluctant individuals to work extended shifts and heard testimony from the production workers that they were not being paid for their hours." Id. at ¶ 52.
In early August, Plaintiff was "similarly defrauded by Gate Gourmet," notified his supervisors, and tried to obtain the contact information of the payroll personnel. Id. at ¶¶ 54-55. Plaintiff alleges that "Miss Parker attempted to coerce [] Plaintiff into continuing to work extended hours, making a statement to the effect that refusal would lead her to suggest he be laid off." Id. at ¶ 56. Though Plaintiff had "valuable contracts to complete" for his corporation,1 Plaintiff "complied with her coercion, observing that his departure would lead to Miss Parker obtaining the involuntary servitude from one of the more handicapped production workers." See id. at ¶¶ 43, 57. Plaintiff "call[ed] out" for his remaining shifts and subsequently requested the contact information for human resources. Id. at ¶ 59. In September 2018 Plaintiff sent an email to human resources explaining that "he had been defrauded" and would "escalate the matter" if there was no "investigation or remedy." Id. at ¶ 60. During some unspecified time in September, Plaintiff "discovered that [the] tires on his trailer had been slashed." Id. at ¶ 61.
A San Francisco Police Department officer, Officer Gonsalves, called Plaintiff and indicated that "he had received a call for service alleging that Plaintiff had threatened the human resources personnel of Gate Gourmet," but Officer Gonsalves "agreed that [] Plaintiff had not violated any statute." Id. at ¶¶ 62, 64. Plaintiff told Officer Gonsalves that he "did not have great concern about the money he was due" from Gate Gourmet, but was more concerned for "the individuals being forced to work in conditions of forced labor." Id. at ¶ 63. Officer Gonsalves indicated that Gate Gourmet's conduct was a civil matter. Id. at ¶ 64. In October, Plaintiff found that his vehicle had been tampered with, and the facility manager of a repair shop "confirmed that such vehicle condition was very unlikely to have occurred without tampering, and that it was reasonable to associate the tampering with an attempt on his life by the criminal organization he had opposed." Id. at ¶¶ 66-67.
In late November 2018, Parker "visited numerous police departments seeking" Plaintiff's arrest. Id. at ¶ 69. An officer from the Daly City Police Department, Ian Maddison, initiated aninquiry, and Plaintiff made several attempts to contact Officer Maddison, who "did not question [] Plaintiff nor inform him of Miss Parker's complaint." Id. at ¶¶ 70, 73, 75. Officer Maddison "falsely reported that Plaintiff refused to identify himself." Id. at ¶ 76. Officer Maddison "reported that Miss Parker" received threatening text messages from Plaintiff on November 15. Id. at ¶¶ 80-81, 83. Officer Maddison indicated that Parker had reported the text messages to her supervisor and that she had considered the messages "a credible threat to harm her with firearms." Id. at ¶ 79. Officer Maddison "filed a report with deliberately false and misleading statements" and obtained an arrest warrant for Plaintiff. Id. at ¶ 80. According to the FAC, the complaint that Officer Maddison filed included the following text messages:
Id. at ¶ 81. Plaintiff notes that these text messages listed in the complaint are an excerpt from a lengthier transcript and does not seem to dispute that he sent these messages. See id. Officer Maddison "distributed a TRAK flyer, titled '422 PC to Arrest'" that "deceptively" indicated that "Plaintiff threatened to use firearms to 'kill as many people . . . as I want." Id. at ¶ 86. On November 19, Plaintiff was awoken "at gun-point, cuffed, and placed in a patrol car." Id. at ¶ 87. Plaintiff was "fully compliant and inquired to Officer Premenko and other arresting officers about the charge, [but] the arresting officers refused an answer and/or responded that they were unaware." Id. at ¶ 88.
Officer Paul Mendiara "proceeded to unlawfully search Plaintiff's truck and utility trailer," and Officer Premenko transported Plaintiff "without notice of his right to post bail." Id. at ¶¶ 90-91. During his interrogation, Plaintiff's request to Officer Mendiara "to be informed of the details of the offense" was denied. Id. at ¶ 96. Plaintiff indicated that he "had observed and experienced all of the element of human trafficking" at Gate Gourmet, that Gate Gourmet previously "had attempted to wrongfully indict him," and that his vehicle was tampered with. Id. at ¶ 93. Plaintiff was transported to "county jail in Redwood City for booking." Id. at ¶ 98.
The FAC identifies a related, unresolved criminal case pending in San Mateo Superior Court which involves allegations that Plaintiff made criminal threats against his supervisor in violation of California Penal Code Section 422. See generally FAC at 1 (citing case No. 18-NF-013669-A). The FAC also details his release on bail, see id. at ¶ 103, participation in his preliminary hearing, see id. at ¶¶ 99-102, filing of various motions in his criminal matter, see id. at ¶¶ 108-09, 124-29, requests for informal discovery from the District Attorney's Office, see id. at ¶¶ 110-13, 118, 134-36, and the issuance of subpoenas for witnesses to "further establish the human trafficking and criminal profiteering at Gate Gourmet." See id. at ¶ 116. Plaintiff states that the evidence he received from informal discovery included reports by Officer Mendiara, Officer Maddison, and Officer Premenko, a video, and a time-stamped interrogation, and that the documents and video "made evident the false and misleading statements submitted by Officer Maddison and Officer Mendiara." Id. at ¶¶ 111-12.
Plaintiff reported the human trafficking and criminal profiteering to the San Francisco Police Department, San Mateo County Police Department, and the FBI, but alleges that "there has been no further communication or inquiry indicating any progress or advancement in their investigation." Id. at ¶ 180. Plaintiff alleges that various Defendants, specifically Daly City, San Mateo County, the City and County of San Francisco, and the FBI, have "failed to properly investigate the incident, and/or failed to take any action to discipline the involved actors, allocate [] Plaintiff with equal protections of the law, or avoid similar incidents from occurring in the future," and that "such conduct evidences the ratification of the foregoing acts and omissions by [] Defendants, and evidences a deliberate indifference to the rights of citizens." Id. at ¶ 182.Plaintiff states that "Defendants acted as integral participants, each with fundamental involvement in the violation of Plaintiff's rights." Id. at ¶ 183. Plaintiff states that Defendants' acts or omissions were a "direct and proximate result" of Plaintiff's injuries, including wrongful seizure, false imprisonment, violations of state and federal constitutional rights (including violations of the First, Second, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments), emotional distress and loss of liberty, and property damages for lost property and wages. Id. at ¶ 185.
Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action, though it is not always clear which Defendants Plaintiff references for a given cause of action:
To continue reading
Request your trial