Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08032004 - C.14 CLAIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNT r • 'BOARD ACTION. AUGUST 03, 2004 Claim Against the County, or District Governed by ) the Board of Supervisors,Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your California Government Codes. ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors. (Paragraph IV below), give] Pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all"Warnings". AMOUNT: EXCEEDS $10,000. f CLAIMANT: JEREMY GARNER. ATTORNEY: JEFFREY G. NEVIN, ESQ DATE RECEIVED: JULY 029 2004 ADDRESS: JEFFREY G. NEVIN LAW CORPORATION 13Y DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: JULY 02, 2004 50 .CALIFORNIA STREET, SMITE 1500 RECEIVED TgROUCH SAN FRANCISCO, CA. '94111 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: INTEROFFICE MAIL FROM CLERK RECORD] FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. JOHN SWEETEN 1 r Dated: JULY 02t__ 2004 By: Deputy IT Mom: County Counsel. TO: Clerk of the Berard of Supervisors (�J'This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( ) This Claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). { ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim(Section 911.3). { ) Other: Dated: : is ` '` B �' . i Deputy County Coun; � i : �_ III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator(2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant(Section 911.3). IVOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present: ( This Claim is rejected in full. { ) Other: I certif that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Dated: C SWEETEN, CLERIC, By , Deputy Clerk WARNING(Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions,you have only six(6)months from the date this notice was personally served or deposit in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. *For Additional'Warning See Reverse Side of This Notice. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now,and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California,postage full prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the claimant as shown above. Dated: OHN SWEETEN, CLERIC By47 Deputy Cler ORIGNAL 4i 2,,04 CLAIM AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITIES ANIS PUBLIC EMPLOY California Government Cade § 910 JEREMY GARNER hereby claims against the SAN FRANCISCO}BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT, a district and joint powers authority,and its employees DOE I through DOE 50, inclusive, COUNTY OF CO)NTRA. COSTA, a political subdivision of California, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, a political subdivision of California, and CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO?, a merged jurisdiction political subdivision of California, by making the following statement by and through counsel in support of his Claim: 1. Claimant's name is Jeremy Garner, a natural person(hereinafter"Claimant"). 2. Claimant Jeremy Gainer's postal address is 72 Greensboro Way, Antioch, CA 94509. 3. Notices concerning the Claim should be sent to Claimant's attorney of record,Jeffrey G. Nevin,Esq.,Jeffrey G.Nevin Law Corporation, 50 California Street, Suite 1500, San Francisco,California 94111. 4. The public entity claimed against is the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District,a district and joint powers authority(hereinafter"BART")which committed acts and omissions relevant to this Clain through its Boards, Commissions, Departments,Bureaus and other units including but not limited to its BART Police Doartment, as well as against BART's public employees consisting o£: a. Doe I,to be identified as the BART employee who was the operator of the BART train at issue in this Claim, b. Does 2 throuih_6, inclusive,to be identified as the BART employees who were the dispatchers, traffic controllers and/or station agents who were controlling the movement of,and had the mandatory duty to stop and hold,the BART train at issue in this Claim; C. Doe 7,to be identified as that BART employee who was one of three police officers with the BART Police Department who interacted with Claimant at the Lafayette Station during the incident claimed herein, specifically that older Caucasian uniformed police officer with grey hair who grabbed co-Claimant Matthew amuels's throat and choked him; d. Doe 8, to be identified as that BART employee who was one of three police officers with the BART Police Department who interacted with Claimant at the Lafayette Station during the incident claimed herein, specifically that Asian uniformed police officer who appeared to be in charge, and who handcuffed and arrested co-Claimant Matthew Samuels, and who Claimant is informed and believe may be named"Officer Nguyen", e. Doe 9,to be identified as that BART employee who was one of three police officers with the BART Police Department who interacted with Claimant at the CLAIM AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITY--JFREMY GARNER Y.BART,ETAL. 1 Lafayette Station during the incident claimed herein, specifically that younger Caucasian uniformed police officer who assisted Doe 7 and Doe 8; f. Does 10 through 19,to be identified as those BART employees who were the police officers with the BART Police Department who responded to a call at the West Oakland Station to break up a fight between a group of Caucasian male youths and a group of African-American male youths on a train that was stopped and held there in the incident claimed herein; and f: Does 20 through50,inclusive,to be identified as ether BART employees whose acts and omissions proximately caused the injuries and damages to Claimant, as well as against the County .of Contra Costa, a political subdivision of California, County of Alameda., a political subdivision of California, and City and County of San Francisco, a merged jurisdiction political subdivision of California, (hereinafter collectively the "Counties), which Counties owned or controlled the premises upon which the tortious and other wrongful acts and omissions claimed herein were committed and upon which premises Claimant suffered his injuries and damages claimed herein;and which Counties are signatories of the joint powers agreement that established BART under Govt.C. §§ 895, et seq., and §§ 6500,et seq., and are therefore jointly and severally liable with BART and with each either under Govt.C. § 895.2 for liabilities arising from the acts and omissions of BART and its employees (BART, the Doe BART employees and the Counties hereinafter collectively the"Claimees"). 5. Claimant was prevented from obtaining the information necessary to determine the identities and true names of the public employees claimed against herein as Does due to the positive acts and willful omissions of BART and its BART Police Department and its employees,who expressly refused to provide Claimant with copies of the police report on the incident claimed herein, despite reasonable,timely and proper requests having been made to the Custodian of Records of the BART Police Department. 6. The torts,violations and ether wrongful acts and omissions of said Doe BART public employees, and each of them, occurred within the scope of their employment with BART. 7. Claimee BART is liable for the torts,.violations and tither wrongful acts and omissions of its public employees under the principle of respondeat superior made applicable by Govt.C. §§ 815.2(a), 820(a). 8. Claimant alleges on information and belief that each Claimee acted as the agent, alter ego,privy,conspirator and aider and abettor of each and every other Claimee. At all relevant times,each Claimee was acting Mthin the scope of such agency,conspiracy and relationship at the time the wrongful actions alleged herein were committed. 9. Claimant's claims against Claimees in this Claim"accrued" (as that term is used in GovLC. § 901)no earlier than on January 1,2004. CLAIM AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITYW--JEREmy GARNER V.BART,-PTAL. 2 ................. 10. Claimant's claims are brought in conjunction with the Claims of Maxwell Samuels and Matthew Samuels arising out of the same incident and transaction, but who brim identical but separate Claims in compliance with Nguyen v. Los Angeles County HarborlLiCLA Medical Center, g Cal.App.4th 729, 733, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 709 (1992) (Jeremy Garner, Maxwell Samuels and Matthew Samuels hereinafter collectively "Claimants,"in the plural). 11. Claimants and each of them are young males who were between 24 and 21 years of age at time of the incident at issue in this Claim. Maxwell and Matthew Samuels are biological twin brothers, and are close friends with Jeremy Garnier. At all relevant times herein, they were, and are, domiciled and resident in the County of Contra Costa in the State of California. 12. Shortly before her death, Maxwell and Matthew's mother presented the twins with a set of matching gold chain necklace and charm. These gold chains and charms held great sentimental value to each of the twins, since they symbolized their bond to each other and to their beloved deceased mother. At the time of the incident herein, Claimant Matthew Samuels was wearing such chain and charm. 13. On the night December 31, 2403, Claimants decided to treat themselves and two of their girlfriends for a rare night out in San Francisco to enjoy the public New Year's Eve celebrations at the Justin Herman Plaza in or near the,Embareadero Center and near the Ferry Building,and to observe the public fireworks show nearby. 14. To transport themselves to said public event in Sari Francisco, Claimants selected as their mode of transportation that certain common carrier conveyance commonly known as "BART"trains that are owned and operated by Claimees. 15. Claimants were induced:to make such choiceof transportation by Claimees' public announcements that BART and its employees would be running special New Year's late- night BART trains past the usual closing:time of midnight to take the New Year's Eve celebrants home that particular night. Indeed, said public service announcements on television,radio,printed the Internet promoted and.recommended BART's special New Year's late-night train service as the safe and sensible transportation choice for the celebrants. 16. Claimants,as well as other members of the public,were also induced to make such choice of transportation by Claimees' erroneous or false public announcements that BART fares would be waived and passage would be free for said special New Year's late-night train service. Such public announcements were false, in that Claimants and all other passengers within Claimants' personal knowledge were, in fact,required to pay full fare for passage on said special late-night train service. 17. Claimants, and each of them,purchased lawful passage upon the BART train common carrier conveyance operated by Claimees, and boarded such trains at the Pittsburg/Bay Point Station to travel to the Embareadero Station in San Francisco. CLAIM AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITY- JEREMY GARNER V.BART,ETAL. 3 18. At the public New Year's Eve celebrations in San Francisco, Claimants and their girlfriends felt uncomfortable with the rowdy behavior by obviously inebriated members of the crowd at such public fireworks event, and therefore decided to seek the perceived safety of the.BART trains and head home immediately upon the conclusion of the fireworks show shortly after the stroke of midnight on January 1, 2004,that rang in the New Year. 19. Upon arriving at and entering the Embarcadero Station shortly after midnight,Claimants discovered after it was too late that Claimees had failed to plan for and implement the necessary crowd control procedures for the sudden surge and influx of passengers attempting to board BAIT trains at the Embareadero Station to use the special New Year's late-night train service,and thus Claimees had negligently created dangerous conditions upon their premises due to their failure to exercise due care,even though Claiimces should have known of the need for such crowd control arising shortly after midnight on January l of every year. The crowd inside the Embareadero Station was so uncontrolled, that certain of the Claimants and their girlfriends got separated in the milling mass of humanity. 20. Claimants and their two girlfriends boarded one of said special New Year's late-night BART trains at the Embarcadero Station in San Francisco for their return transportation back home. They all boarded the same car of an east-bound Pittsburg/Bay Point train, but Claimant Matthew Samuels was separated from the remaining two Claimants and their girlfriends. Even after they boarded the train car,they could not find each other in that same train car because Claimees negligently allowed the passengers to pack into each of the limited number of available cars like sardines shoulder-to-shoulder, and movement within the oar was impossible for most passengers. 21. In failing to schedule and supply enough trains and cars to transport passengers that they had invited, encouraged and persuaded to use the special New Year's late-night train' service, and in failing to plan for and implement the necessary crowd control procedures for the trains in light of their prior knowledge of the surge and influx in the number of passengers, Claimees had negligently created dangerous conditions upon the premises of the trains and their cars. 22. Unbeknownst to Claimants at the time they bearded said train car,a fight was already brewing within that ear from prior stations between a group of Caucasian male youths and a group of African-American male youths. After the train got under way from the Embarcadero Station and was traversing through the Transbay Tube, such fight then erupted into actual violence in transit somewhere between the Embarcadero Station and the Oakland West Station. 23. Doe l train operator, Does 2 through 6 traffic controllers, dispatchers and/or station agents,and Does 10 through 19 BART Police officers had actual knowledge of that first fight occurring in that car of said train because the train was stopped and held at the Oakland West Station and met by said Does 10 through 19 BART Police officers. CLAIM AGAINST PUBLIC EN I ITY---JEREMY GARNFR V.DART,ETAL. 4 24. Although said Does 10 through 19 BART Police officers stopped the fight,the manner in which they did so negligently created a dangerous condition within said car of said train in which Claimants were riding. Said Does 10 through 19 BART Police officers separated the black combatants from the white combatants, but off-loaded only the black combatants at the Oakland West Station, leaving the white combatants remaining in the same car of the train to continue with their journey. Claimees reasonably should have known that the white combatants—already inebriated,punchy and primed for a fight— would soon start other fights to victimize innocent passengers, such as Claimants. 25. Indeed,shortly after the train departed the Oakland West Station to resume its journey, the white combatants struck and began beating innocent bystanders Jeremy Garner and Maxwell Samuels for no reason other than that they happened to be there in the wrong place at the wrong time. The white combatants would gang up a few at a time to take turns beating on Claimants Jeremy Garner and Maxwell Samuels,then called over their cohorts from other parts of the car and other cars of the train to join in and participate in this one-sided beating. Eventually, approximately 30 white assailants were beating on Claimants Jeremy Garner and Maxwell Samuels,who were defenseless because they were grossly out-numbered. Even after they crouched into fetal positions on the floor to defend against blows from fists, they continued to get"kneed"and kicked in the head and elsewhere, and suffering serious injuries such as a possible skull fracture and internal brain bleeding. 26. Doe I train operator and Does 2 through 6 traffic controllers, dispatchers and/or station agents had actual knowledge of the violence re-starting after the Oakland West Station because Claimants are informed and believe that bystander passengers of that car and nearby cars used the train's intercom system to call and inform Doe I train operator•of the beating,who in turn used the train's radio to inform Does 2 through 6 traffic controllers, dispatchers and/or station agents. 27. Doe I train operator had actual knowledge of the violence re-starting after the Oakland West Station because female bystander passengers were screaming hysterically, and Doe I train operator repeatedly announced over the PA system of the train, "I hear ya, stop smoking and settle down," or to similar effect. 28. Doe I train operator had actual knowledge of the violence re-starting after the Oakland West Station because he deliberately and repeatedly kept"slamming" on the brakes of the train to shake the cars violently in an effort to disrupt the fight. 29. Doe I train operator had actual knowledge of the violence re-starting after the Oakland West Station because at every station between Oakland West and Lafayette, innocent bystander passengers literally tumbled out en masse out the doors in panic, some on their hands and knees because they were piling over one another in a panicked effort to egress the cars of the train to escape the violence therein. 30. Even though all innocent passengers in the car(especially Claimants)wanted to egress at the first possible station to escape the violence, Doe 1 train operator negligently, deliberately or with reckless disregard prematurely closed the doors before all passengers CLAIM AGAINST PUBLIC ENTrry-JEREmy GARNFRv.HART,ErAL 5 ...... who wanted to get off got off, thereby falsely imprisoning all of them who could not get out in time. This pattern of negligent,intentional or callous indifference to the passengers' health and safety continued and was repeated at five stations: Oakland City Center/I2th Street, 19th Street Oakland,MacArthur, Rockridge and Orinda. 31. By the time the train approached the Orinda Station,the crowd inside the car in which the beating was taking place had thinned out enough(due the handfuls of passengers escaping at each of the preceding three stations)to permit Claimant Matthew Samuels in the other part of'the car to reach his twin brother Maxwell and their good friend Jeremy Garner to attempt to come to their aid and rescue. Whereupon,the 30 white assailants began beating Matthew Samuels also, and in the process ripped off and took his gold chain necklace and charm, a gift from his deceased mother that held great sentimental value. Matthew implored upon the assailants to return the gold chain, but to no avail. 32. Eventually, Matthew Samuels was able to seize an opportunity to escape out of the car when the train arrived at the Lafayette Station. Whereupon,Matthew immediately ran on the Lafayette Station's platform to the first car of the train to tell Doe 1 train operator, "Stop the train HERE,call the police NOW,"or to similar effect. 33. Whereupon, Doe 1 train operator, Does 2 through 6 traffic controllers,dispatchers and/or station agents, and the BART Police finally and belatedly decided to stop and hold the train at the Lafayette Station to await arrival of BART Police officers. 34. Far from being rescued by the BART Police at the Lafayette Station;however, Claimants were subjected to farther physical and emotional abuse and other tortious and unlawful behavior by those same police officers who Claimants were relying upon to rescue them and to administer justice upon the group of criminal assailants who had beaten them up. 35. Upon physically separating the criminal assailants from Claimants, with the criminal assailants in the train and Claimants on the platform,Claimants tried to explain to BART Police officers Doe 7, Doe 8 and Doe 9 what had happened,but the said police officers were rude,abrupt and disinterested, and ignored Claimants' pleas for help. Claimant Matthew Samuels finally had to implore the officers to go with him back into the train car, where Matthew proceeded to identify those criminal assailants still on the train who had committed the beatings and therefore felony crimes of assault and battery,by pointing to them and saying"him,him,him, him,him, etc."and asked said police officers to take down their names so that criminal charges could be filed. The said police officers, however,ignored Matthew's request,ordered hire back off the train, and told him to"SHUT THE FUCK UP [the exact words used]." 36. Whereupon,Matthew requested that the officers at least retrieve the gold chain necklace and charm that the criminal assailants had stolen from him, since it held great sentimental value as a gift from his deceased mother. The officers,however, ignored Matthew's request, and instead told him to"SHUT THE FUCK UP [the exact words used]." The criminal assailants inside the train heard this, however, and began laughing and mocking Claimants about"mommy's"necklace that they had stolen. CLAIM AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITY--,JEREMY GARNEP Y.BART,ETAI- 6 37. Then,to Claimants' utter disbelief, shack and dismay, BART Police officers Doe 7,Doe 8 and/or Doe 9 radioed BART dispatchers to order the train operator to close the doors and have the train proceed on its way. At seeing this, Claimants protested and complained loudly to the said police officers, who responded by telling them to"SHUT THE FUCK UP [the exact words used]." 38. After the train doors closed and the train prepared to get underway,the criminal assailants inside the car were erupting with joy,glee and laughter because they had just committed multiple felonies, almost beat two of the Claimants to death, and were getting away scot-free with the help and blessing of the BART Police without so much as their names being taken, and instead saw the BART Police turn against the victims by yelling at them repeatedly to"SHUT THE FUCK UP [the exact words used]." 39. As a parting gesture of defiance, after the doors were closed and the BART Police officers all had their backs turned to the train, one of the criminal assailants inside the train took out from his pocket the gold necklace and charm that he had stolen from Claimant Matthew Samuels,dangled it to full length,and swung it back and forth like a pendulum to flaunt it in front of the BART car window, all the while laughing and mocking the Claimants. Upon seeing this,Claimants implored upon BART Police officers Doe 7,Doe 8 and Doe 9 to simply tura around and look at the train because the criminal assailants were displaying the chain:that they stole from them,but said police officers instead told Claimants to "SHUT THE FUCK UP [the exact words used]." 40. When Claimants continued to complain and protest because the BART Police officers Doe 7, Doe 8 and Doe 9 had just allowed upwards of 30 felons get away scot-free without so much as taking dawn their names,said police officers yelled.in Claimant Matthew Samuels' face,"SHUT THE FUCK UP [the exact words used]," and prodded to criminally assault,batter and falsely arrest and imprison.Matthew. 41. Even after Matthew begged and implored upon BART Police officers Doe 7,Dae 8 and Doe 9 to call an ambulance and summon medical assistance for his twin brother Maxwell Samuels because he looked like he was dying from the injuries he received from the beating, said police officers ignored such requests and failed and refused to call an ambulance or to summon medical help, and instead told Matthew to"SHUT THE FUCK UP [the exact words used]." 42. Eventually, BART Police officer Doe 7,without provocation,justification or consent, suddenly grabbed Matthew's throat with his open hand between his thumb and four fingers,threw Matthew's back hard against the one of the clear plexiglass wind-screens surrounding the benches on the platform,held Matthew pinned against the plexiglass and chocked Matthew's windpipe hard for ten (IO)full seconds,thereby preventing Matthew from breathing for as long,all the while screaming at the top of his lungs into Matthew's face, "SHUT THE FUCK UP [the exact wards used]." 43. Thereafter, BART Police officer Doe 8 swung Matthew around violently to handcuff him. BART Police officers Doe 7, Doe 8 and Doe 9 then forcibly removed all three Claimants from the platform, and out of the Lafayette Station. Whereupon, BART Police CLAPwI AGAINST PUBLIC ENTI i y--SEimmy GARNER V.BART,ETA]- 7 _. _. officers Doe 7, Doe 8 and .Doe 9 abandoned the seriously-injured Maxwell Samuels on the cold concrete of the sidewalk immediately outside of the station building without medical attention,then violently threw the handcuffed Matthew Samuels into the back of one of the waiting police cars. 44. Just as BART Police officer Doe 7 was about to drive away in the police car with Matthew Samuels handcuffed in the back, he received a call on the police radia of a report of a fight breaking out at the Pleasant Hill Station. Whereupon, Doe 7 demanded that Matthew get out of the car, then un-cuffed him. When Matthew asked Doe 7 what was happening,Doe 7 responded, "DON'T FUCKING BOTHER ME, I'VE GOT MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO DEAL WITH,"or to similar effect, then got in his police car and sped off along with all of the other police officers, Doe 8 and Doe 9. 45. Because the BART Police officers had failed to summon medical attention as requested for the seriously-injured Maxwell Samuels before they left them at the now-abandoned Lafayette Station, Claimants had to telephone friends in Antioch,who drove all the way down to Lafayette to pick them up and to take all Claimants directly to a nearby hospital. 46. Maxwell Samuels was x-rayed and found to have a possible skull fracture and internal bleeding of his brain that was causing pressures to build up inside his skull. He was advised that he could die unless a hole was drilled into his head to relieve the pressure, and he was in fact kept in the Intensive Care Unit of the hospital for two full days. Claimants Matthew Samuels and Jeremy Garner also suffered serious physical injuries, as well as pain and suffering. 47. In addition to their physical injuries, Claimants have suffered sever emotional scarring, in that they are now afraid to go out in public, and cannot use BART as a means of transportation anymore because they fear the BART Police, and fear that they will run into some of the 30 criminal assailants who had beaten them up. Such physical and emotional injuries have also proximately caused other damages, such as loss of income and inability to work, and have caused them to withdraw socially and to distrust all authority figures, such as the police of any jurisdiction,not just the BART Police. 48. As a common carrier providing passage to persons of the public for reward, BART and its employees owed heightened duty of care under CC §§2 100, et seq. to use the utmost care and diligence to ensure their passengers'safe carriage, and had heightened duty to provide everything necessary for that purpose and to exercise to that end a reasonable degree of skill. BART and its employees were negligent in failing to exercise such heightened duty of due care. As a proximate result of such negligence, Claimants and each of them suffered severe physical bodily injuries and emotional distress,as well as other general, special and consequential damages, for which Claimants seek monetary damages with this Claim. 49. Claimants are informed and believe, and based thereon allege,that BART and its public employees' mandatory,non-discretionary and ministerial duty imposed by enactment that is designed to protect against the risk of the particular bind of injury arising from such incidents in such circumstances as alleged in this Claim(as such duty is defined by CLAIM AGAINST PUBLic ENTITY—JEREMY GARNER V.BART,ETAL. 8 _. ._.. Govt.C. § 815.6; hereinafter"§ 815.6 mandatory duty") is for the train operator to use the train's radio to report the incident to the BART employee traffic controller,dispatcher and/or station agent,proceed to the next station and then stop and hold the train until BART Police officers arrive to control the situation. Claimants are informed and believe, and based thereon allege,that said § 815.6 mandatory duty is imposed by enacted statutes,ordinances or.regulations, or by rules and procedures promulgated or adopted pursuant to such enactments. 50. Upon arrival at the Oakland City Center/12th Street Station, Doe 1 train operator, Does 2 through 6 traffic controllers,dispatchers and/or station agents breached said § 815.6 mandatory duty by failing to stop and hold the train to wait for BART Police officers to arrive and take control of the situation. Instead, Doe 1 train operator immediately closed the train doors,thereby falsely imprisoning Claimants inside the car to expose them to fin ther beatings, and proceeded to the next station(Oakland 19th Street Station)as though nothing were wrong. floe l train operator, Does 2 through 6 traffic controllers, dispatchers and/or station agents continued and repeated this pattern of negligent, intentional:or reckless disregard of Claimants' safety, suffering and well-being at five stations(Oakland City Center/12th Street, 19th Street Oakland,MacArthur, Rockridge and Orinda), thus trapping Claimants for them to continue getting beaten by the criminal assailants for nearly 20 minutes for over 15 miles spanning seven stations,three cities, two counties and eight zip codes. As a proximate result of such breaches, Claimants and each of them suffered severe physical bodily injuries and emotional distress,as well as other general;special and consequential damages, for which Claimants seek monetary damages with this Claim. 51. Claimants allege that the public entity and public employee Claimees failed to plan for, manage, allocate and implement adequate train and car resources,crowd control procedures and police protection for the special New'Year's late-night train service, thereby negligently causing"dangerous conditions"that created substantial risk of injury on the premises of such stations and on the tracks therebetween and in the trains situated thereon,all owned and controlled by the Claimees including the Counties, as the term and concept"dangerous condition"is defined and used by Govt.C. §§ 830, et seq., and§§ 840, et seq. As a proximate result such dangerous conditions negligently created and maintained, Claimants and each of them suffered physical bodily injuries and emotional distress,as well as other general, special and consequential damages,for which Claimants seek monetary damages with this Claim. 52. Claimees' acts and omissions claimed above give rise to an action for Common Carrier liability under California Civil Code §§ 2100, et seq. 53. Claiees' acts and omissions claimed above give rise to an action under Govt.C. § 815.6 for damages for Claimant's injuries proximately caused by Claimees' failure to discharge mandatory duties imposed by enactments that were designed to protect against the risk of a particular kind of injury that Claimant suffered. 54. Claimees' acts and omissions claimed above give rise to an action under Govt.C. §§ 830, et seg.,and §§'840,et seq. for damages for Claimant's injuries proximately caused by CLAIM AGAINST ftf)LIC ENTITY-,JEREMY GARNER V.BART,ETAL. 9 the dangerous conditions that Claimees negligently caused to exist on premises owned and controlled by Claimees, which Claimees had notice of. 55. Claimees' acts and omissions claimed above give rise to an action for false imprisonment by non.-police officer employees of Claimees. 56. Claimees' acts and omissions claimed above give rise to an action for false arrest and false imprisonment by the police officer employees of Claimees. 57. Claimees' acts and emissions claimed above give rise to an action for assault and battery. 58. Claimees' acts and omissions claimed above give rise to an action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. 59. Claimees' acts and omissions claimed above give rise to an action for negligent infliction of emotional distress. 60. Claimees' acts and omissions claimed above give rise to an action for negligence. 61. As a direct and proximate result of Claimees' acts and omissions claimed above, Claimants and each of them suffered bodily injuries and emotional distress, as well as other general, special and consequential damages. 62. Under Govt.C. § 910(f),Claimants state that the amount of damages at this date of the claim exceeds$10,000, and that the jurisdiction over this Claim rests in the Unlimited Jurisdiction division of the Superior Court. 63. Claimants are exercising their rights under Govt.C. § 910.4 to present its Claim other than on the official form, if any,prescribed by the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, Contra Costa County, Alameda County, and City and County of San Francisco. DATED: JuneV2004 Respectfully submitted, _ JEFFREY Q-!� LAW C RPORATION Jeffrey G.Nevin Attorneys for Claimants JEREMY GARNER., MAXWELL SAMUELS and MATTHEW SAMUELS CLAIM AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITY—JEREMY GARNER v.BART,Env- 10 PROOF OF SERVICE I,Thomas H. Kawaii,declare and state as follows: I am over 18 years of age, and not a party to the herein action. My business address is within the county in which the service took place. On June�, 2004, I served the attached: 1. Claim against Public Entity—Jeremy Garner v. BART,et al.; and 2. This proof of Service by personally delivering the original thereof and however many copies requested to the following party at the following place at the following address: San Francisco Bay Area Transit District District Secretary c/o Administration/Legal 800 Madison Street Oakland, CA 94607 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June 2004, in San Francisco, California. Thomas H. Kawaii CLAIM AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITY--JEREMY GAMER V.BART,ETAL. PROOF OF SERVICE I,Tiffany N.Townsend,declare and state as follows: I am over 18 years of age, and not a party to the herein action. I am employed within the City and County of San Francisco, California. Can June , 2004, I served the attached: 3. Claim against Public Entity—Jeremy Garner v. BAIT, et at.; and 4. This Proof of Service by enclosing the original thereof and two copies in a sealed envelopes, and placing the envelopes with fully prepaid First Class Certified Mail,Return Receipt Requested postage thereon in the United States Mail in San Francisco,California;addressed as follows: Alameda County Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder Clerk-Recorder 1106 Madison Street, Room.101 822 Main Street Oakland, CA 94607 P.O. Box 355 } Martinez, CA 94553 City and County of San Francisco Controller's Office City Hall 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place,Room 396, Saiz Francisco, CA 94142-4694 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June ,2004, in San Francisco, California. Tail Townsend CLAim AGAINST PuDuc ENTiTY®,TEREMY GARNER V.BART,ETAL. 12 CLAIM B AM OF SUPERVIT ORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY (,;, • BOARD ACTION:AUGUST 03, 2004 Claim Against the County,or District Governed by ) the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action. All Section references are to } The copy of this document mailed to you is your California Government Codes. ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors. (Paragraph IV below), givei Pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all"Warnings". Exceeds $10,000. AMOUNT: CLAIMANT: MAZE SAMELS ATTORNEY: JEFFREY G. NEVIN r � "<µ�<MATE RECEIVED: -IDLY 023 2004 ADDRESS: JEFFREY G. NEVIN LAW CORPORATION BY DELIVERY TO CLEF.ON: JULY 02, 2004 50 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 1500 RECEIVED TBROUGH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 BY.MAIL POSTMARKED: INTER OFFICE MAIL FROM THE CLERK FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel RECORDER Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. JOHN SWE E �rk Dated: JULY O2, 2004 By: Deputy II. MOM: County Counsel, TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( } This Claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 914 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claire(Section 911.3). { ) Other: y Dated: . ' :. By �" ` f °`, .-.� Deputy County Coun., III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel(1) County Administrator(2) { ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant(Section 911.3). IV. I QARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present: t ( This Claim is rejected in full. } Other: a I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Dated: ' _&4%P9 JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK,By , Deputy Clerk WARNING(Gov. code section 913) Subject to certainn exceptions, you have only six(6)months from the date this notice was personally served or deposit in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. *For Additional Warning See Reverse side of This Notice. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned,have been a citizen of the United States,over age 18; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez,California,postage fut prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the claimant as shown above. Dated: gfW=AOHN SWEETEN, CLERK.By Deputy Clef ORIGINAL y �RV.AIM AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITIES AND PUBLIC EMP California Government Code § 910 e MATTHEW SAMUELS hereby claims against the SAN FRANCISCO BAY A , . TRANSIT DISTRICT, a district and joint powers authority, and its employees DUE 1 thio DOE 50, inclusive, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, a political subdivision of California, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, a political subdivision of California, and CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a merged jurisdiction political subdivision of California,by making the following statement by and through counsel in support of his Claim: 1. Claimant's name is Matthew Samuels,a natural person (hereinafter"Claimant"). 2. Claimant Matthew Samuels' postal address is 5751 Bridgehead Road, Space 31, Oakley, CA 94561, 3. Notices concerning the Claim should be sent to Claimant's attorney of record, Jeffrey G. Nevin,Esq.,Jeffrey G.Nevin Law Corporation, 50 California Street, Suite 1500, San Francisco, California 94111. 4. The public entity claimed against is the San Francisco Bay Area Reid Transit District,a district and Joint powers authority (hereinafter"BART")which committed acts and omissions relevant to this Claim through its Boards, Commissions, Departments,Bureaus and other units including but not limited to its BART Police Department,as well as against BART's public employees consisting of: a. Doe 1,to be identified as the BART employee who was the operator of the BART train at issue in this Claim, b. Does 2 through 6, inclusive,to be identified as the BART employees who were the dispatchers,traffic controllers and/or station agents who were controlling the movement of, and had the mandatory duty to stop and hold,the BART train at issue in this Claim; C. Doe 7, to be identified as that BART employee who was one of three police officers with the BART Police Department who interacted with Claimant at the Lafayette Station during the incident claimed herein, specifically that older Caucasian uniformed police officer with grey hair who grabbed Claimant Matthew Samuels's throat and choked him; d. Doe 8,to be identified as that BART employee who was one of three police officers with the BART Police Department who interacted with Claimant at the Lafayette Station during the incident claimed herein, specifically that Asian uniformed police officer who appeared to be in charge, and who handcuffed and arrested Claimant Matthew Samuels, and who Claimant is informed and believe may be named"Officer NM en"; e. Doe 9,to be identified as that BART employee who was one of three police officers with the BART Police Department who interacted with Claimant at the CLAIM AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITY-MATTHEW SAMUELS v.BART,EPRL. 1 Lafayette Station during the incident claimed herein, specifically that younger Caucasian uniformed police officer who assisted Doe 7 and Doe 8; f. Does 10 through 19,to be identified as those BART employees who were the police officers with the BART Police Department who responded to a call at the West Oakland Station to break up a fight between a group of Caucasian male youths and a group of African-American male youths on a train that was stopped and held there in the incident claimed herein; and f Does 20 through 50, inclusive,to be identified as other BART employees whose acts and omissions proximately caused the injuries and damages to Claimant, as well as against the County of Centra Costa, a political subdivision of California, Cooly of Alameda, a political subdivision of California, and City and County of San Francisco, a merged jurisdiction political subdivision of California, (hereinafter collectively the "Counties"), which Counties owned or controlled the premises upon which the tortious and other wrongful acts and omissions claimed herein were committed and upon which premises Claimant suffered his injuries and damages claimed herein, and which Counties are signatories of the joint powers agreement that established BART under Govt.C. §§ 895,et seq., and §§ 6500,ettseq., and are therefore jointly and severally liable with BART and with each other under Govt.C. § 895.2 for liabilities arising from the acts and omissions of BART and its employees (BART, the Doe BART employees and the Counties hereinafter collectively the"Claimees"). 5. Claimant was prevented from obtaining the information necessary to determine the identities and true names of the public employees claimed against herein as Does due to the positive acts and willful omissions of.BART and its BART Police Department and its employees, who expressly refused to provide Claimant with copies of the police report on the incident claimed herein, despite reasonable, timely and proper requests having been made to the Custodian of Records of the BART.Police Department. 6. The torts,violations and other wrongful acts and omissions of said Doe BART public employees, and each of them, occurred within the scope of their employment with BART. 7. Claimee BART is liable for the torts,violations and other wrongful acts and omissions of its public employees under the principle of respondeat superior made applicable by Govt.C. §§ 815.2(a), 820(a). 8. Claimant alleges on information and belief that each Claimee acted as the agent, alter ego,privy, conspirator and aider and abettor of each and every other Claimee. At all relevant times,each Claimee was acting within the scope of such agency, conspiracy and relationship at the time the wrongful actions alleged herein were committed. 9. Claimant's claims against Claimees in this Claim"accrued"(as that term is used in Govt.C. § 901)no earlier than on January 1, 2004. CLAIM AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITY-MATTHEW SAMUELS N.BART,E1 A1.. 10. Claimant's claims are brought in conjunction with the Claims of Jeremy Garner and Maxwell Samuels arising out of the same incident and transaction, but who bring identical but separate Claims in compliance with Nguyeny. Los Angeles County Harbor/UCLA Medical Center, 8 Cal.App.4th 729, 733, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 709(1992) (Jeremy Garner, Maxwell Samuels and Matthew Samuels hereinafter collectively "Claimants,"in the plural). 11. Claimants and each of them are young males who were between 20 and 21 years of age at time of the incident at issue in this Claim. Maxwell and Matthew Samuels are biological twin brothers, and are close friends with Jeremy Garner. At all relevant times herein, they were, and are,domiciled and resident in the County of Contra Costa in the State of California. 12. Shortly before her death, Maxwell and Matthew's mother presented the twins with a set of matching gold chain necklace and charm. These gold chains and charms held great sentimental value to each of the twins, since they symbolized their bond to each other and to their beloved deceased mother. At the time of the incident herein, Claimant Matthew Samuels was wearing such chain and charm. 13. On the night December 31, 2003, Claimants decided to treat themselves and two of their girlfriends for a rare night out in San Francisco to enjoy the public New Year's Eve celebrations at the Justin Herman Plaza in or near the Embarcadero Center and near the Ferry Building, and to observe the public fireworks show nearby. 14. To transport themselves to said public event in San Francisca, Claimants selected as their mode of transportation that certain common carrier conveyance commonly known as "BART"trains that are owned and operated by Claimees. 15. Claimants were induced to make such choice of transportation by Claimees' public announcements that BART and its employees would be running special New Year's late- night BART trains past the usual closing time of midnight to talo the New Year's Eve celebrants home that particular night. Indeed, said public service announcements on television,radio,print and the Internet promoted and recommended BART's special New Year's late-night train service as the safe and sensible transportation choice for the celebrants. 16. Claimants, as well as other members of the public, were also induced to make such choice of transportation by Claimees' erroneous or false public announcements that BART fares would be waived and passage would be free for said special New Year's late-night train service. Such public announcements were false, in that Claimants and all other passengers within Claimants' personal knowledge were, in fact,required to pay full fare for passage on said special late-night train service. 17. Claimants, and each of them,purchased.lawful,passage upon the BART train common carrier conveyance operated by Claimees, and boarded such trains at the Pittsburg/Bay Point Station to travel to the Embarcadero Station in San Francisco, CLAIM AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITY-MATTHEW SAMUELS v.BART,ErAL. 3 18. At the public New Year's Eve celebrations in San Francisco, Claimants and their girlfriends felt uncomfortable with the rowdy behavior by obviously inebriated members of the crowd at such public fireworks event,and therefore decided to seek the perceived safety of the BART trains and head home immediately upon the conclusion of the fireworks show shortly after the stroke of midnight on January 1, 2004, that rang in the New Year. 19. Upon arriving at and entering the Embarcadero Station shortly after midnight, Claimants discovered after it was too late that Claimees had failed to plan for and implement the necessary crowd control procedures for the sudden surge and influx of passengers attempting to board BART trains at the Embarcadero Station to use the special New Year's late-night train service, and thus Claimees had negligently created dangerous conditions upon their premises due to their failure to exercise due care, even though Claimees should have known of the need for such crowd control arising shortly after midnight on January 1 of every year. The crowd inside the Embarcadero Station was so uncontrolled,that certain of the Claimants and their girlfriends got separated in the milling mass of humanity. 20. Claimants and their two girlfriends boarded one of said special New Year's late-night BART trains at the Embarcadero Station in San Francisco for their return transportation back home. They all boarded the same car of an east-bound Pittsburg/Bay Point train, but Claimant Matthew Samuels was separated from the remaining two Claimants and their girlfriends. Even after they boarded the train car,they could not find each other in that same train car because Claimees negligently allowed the passengers to pack into each of the limited number of available cars like sardines shoulder-to-shoulder,and movement within the car was impossible for most passengers. 21. In failing to schedule and supply enough trains and cars to transport passengers that they had invited, encouraged and persuaded to use the special New Year's late-night train service, and in failing to plan for and implement the necessary crowd control procedures for the trains in light of their prior knowledge of the surge and influx in the number of passengers, Claimees had negligently created dangerous conditions upon the premises of the trains and their cars. 22. Unbeknownst to Claimants at the time they boarded said train car, a fight was already brewing within that car from prior stations between a group of Caucasian male youths and a group of African-American male youths. After the train got underway from the Embarcadero Station and was traversing through the Transbay Tube, such fight then erupted into actual violence in transit somewhere between the Embarcadero Station and the Oakland West Station. 23. Doe 1 train operator,Does 2 through 6 traffic controllers, dispatchers and/or station agents,and Roes 10 through 19 BART Police officers had actual knowledge of that first fight occurring in that car of said train because the train was stopped and held at the Oakland West Station and met by said Roes 10 through 19 BART Police officers. CLAIM AGAINST PUBLIC ENTTr -MATTHEW SAMUELS V.BART,ETAL 4 24. Although said Does 10 through 19 BART Police officers stopped the fight, the manner in which they did so negligently created a dangerous condition within said car of said train in which Claimants were riding. Said Does 10 through 19 BART Police officers separated the black combatants from the white combatants,but off-loaded only the black combatants at the Oakland West Station, leaving the white combatants remaining in the same car of the train to continue with their journey. Claimees reasonably should have known that the white combatants--already inebriated, punchy and primed for a fight--- would soon start other fights to victimize innocent passengers, such as Claimants. 25. Indeed, shortly after the train departed the Oakland West Station to resume its journey, the white combatants struck and began beating innocent bystanders Jeremy Garner and Maxwell Samuels for no reason other than that they happened to be there in the wrong place at the wrong time. The white combatants would gang up a few at a time to take turns beating on Claimants Jeremy Garner and Maxwell Samuels,then called over their cohorts from other parts of the car and other cars of the train to join in and participate in this one-sided beating. Eventually, approximately 30 white assailants were beating on Claimants Jeremy Garner and Maxwell Samuels,who were defenseless because they were grossly out-numbered. Even after they crouched into fetal positions on the floor to defend against blows from fists,they continued to get"kneed"and kicked in the head and elsewhere, and suffering serious injuries such as a possible skull fracture and internal brain bleeding. 26. Doe 1 train operator and Does 2 through 6 traffic controllers,dispatchers and/or station agents had actual knowledge of the violence re-starting after the Oakland West Station because Claimants are informed and believe that bystander passengers of that car and nearby cars used the train's intercom system to call and inform Doe 1 train operator of the beating,who in turn used the train's radio to inform Does 2 through 6 traffic controllers, dispatchers and/or station agents. 27. Doe 1 train operator had actual knowledge of the violence re-starting after the Oakland West Station because female bystander passengers were screaming hysterically, and Doe 1 train operator repeatedly announced over the PA system of the train, "I hear ya, stop smoking and settle down,"or to similar effect. 28. Doe 1 train operator had actual knowledge of the violence re-starting after the Oakland West Station because he deliberately and repeatedly kept"slamming"on the brakes of the train to shake the cars violently in an effort to disrupt the fight. 29. Doe 1 train operator had actual knowledge of the violence re-starting after the Oakland West Station because at every station between Oakland West and Lafayette, innocent bystander passengers literally tumbled out en masse out the doors in panic, some on their hands and knees because they were piling over one another in a panicked effort to egress the cars of the train to escape the violence therein. 30. Even though all innocent passengers in the car(especially Claimants)wanted to egress at the first possible station to escape the violence,Doe 1 train operator negligently, deliberately or with reckless disregard prematurely closed the doors before all passengers CLAim AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITY-MATTHEW SAMUELS V.BART,ETAL. 5 who wanted to get off got off,thereby falsely imprisoning all of them who could not get out in time. This pattern of negligent, intentional or callous indifference to the passengers' health and safety continued and was repeated at five stations: Oakland City Center/12th Street, 19th Street Oakland, MacArthur, Rockridge and Orinda. 31. By the time the train approached the Orinda Station,the crowd inside the car in which the beating was taking place had thinned out enough(due the handfuls of passengers escaping at each of the preceding three stations)to permit Claimant Matthew Samuels in the other part of the car to reach his twin brother Maxwell and their good friend Jeremy Garner to attempt to come to their aid and rescue. Whereupon, the 34 white assailants began beating Matthew Samuels also, and in the process ripped off and took his gold chain necklace and charm, a gift from his deceased mother that held great sentimental value. Matthew implored upon the assailants to return the gold chain,but to no avail. 32. Eventually, Matthew Samuels was able to seize an opportunity to escape out of the car when the train arrived at the Lafayette Station. Whereupon, Matthew immediately ran on the Lafayette Station's platform to the first car of the train to tell Doe 1 train operator, "Stop the train HERE, call the police NOW,"or to similar effect. 33. Whereupon,Doe 1 train operator,Does 2 through 6 traffic controllers, dispatchers and/or station agents, and the BART Police finally and belatedly decided to stop and hold the train at the Lafayette Station to await arrival of BART Police officers. 34. Far from being rescued by the 13ART Police at the Lafayette Station,however,Claimants were subjected to further physical and emotional abuse and other tortious and unlawful behavior by those same police officers who Claimants were relying upon to rescue them and to administer justice upon the group of criminal assailants who had beaten them up. 35. Upon physically separating the criminal assailants from Claimants, with the criminal assailants in the train and Claimants on the platform, Claimants tried to explain to BART Police officers Doe 7, Doe 8 and Doe 9 what had happened,but the said police officers were rude,abrupt and disinterested,and ignored Claimants' pleas for help. Claimant Matthew Samuels finally had to implore the officers to go with him back into the train car,where Matthew proceeded to identify those criminal assailants still on the train who had committed the beatings and therefore felony crimes of assault and battery,by pointing to them and saying"him,him, him,him,him, etc." and asked said police officers to take down their names so that criminal charges could be filed. The said police officers, however, ignored Matthew's request, ordered him back off the train, and told him to"SHUT THE FUCK UP [the exact words used]." 36. Whereupon, Matthew requested that the officers at least retrieve the gold chain necklace and charm that the criminal assailants had stolen from him, since it held great sentimental value as a gift from his deceased mother. The officers, however, ignored Matthew's request, and instead told hila to "SHUT THE FUCK UP [the exact words used]." The criminal assailants inside the train heard this, however, and began laughing and mocking Claimants about"mommy's"necklace that they had stolen. CLAIM AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITY-MATTMEW SAMUFL3 v.BART,ETAL. 6 37. Then,to Claimants' utter disbelief,shock and dismay, BART Police officers Doe 7, Doe 8 and/or Doe 9 radioed BART dispatchers to order the train operator to close the doors and have the train proceed on its way. At seeing this,Claimants protested and complained loudly to the said police officers, who responded by telling them to"SHUT THE FUCK.UP [the exact words used]." 38. After the train doors closed and the train prepared to get underway,the criminal assailants inside the car were erupting with joy,glee and laughter because they had just committed multiple felonies,almost beat two of the Claimants to death, and were getting away scot-free with the help and blessing of the BART Police without so much as their names being taken, and instead saw the BART Police turn against the victims by yelling at them repeatedly to"SHUT THE FUCK.UP [the exact words used]." 39. As a parting gesture of defiance, after the doors were closed and the BART Police officers all had their backs turned to the train, one of the criminal assailants inside the train took out from his pocket the gold necklace and charm that he had stolen from. Claimant Matthew Samuels, dangled it to full length, and swung it back and forth like a pendulum to flaunt it in front of the BART car window, all the while laughing and mocking the Claimants. Upon seeing this, Claimants implored upon BART Police officers Doe 7, Doe 8 and Doe 9 to simply turn around and look at the train because the criminal assailants were displaying the chain that they stole from them, but said police' officers instead told Claimants to "SHUT THE FUCK UP [the exact words used]." 40. When Claimants continued to complain and protest because the BART Police officers Doe 7, Doe 8 and Doe 9 had just allowed upwards of 30 felons get away scot-free without so much as taking down their names, said police officers yelled in Claimant Matthew Samuels' face, "SHUT THE FUCK UP [the exact words used]," and proceeded to criminally assault, batter and falsely arrest and imprison Matthew. 41. Even after Matthew begged and implored upon BART Police officers Doe 7,Doe 8 and Doe 9 to call an ambulance and summon medical assistance for his twin brother Maxwell Samuels because he looked like he was dying from the injuries he received from the beating, said police officers ignored such requests and failed and refused to call an ambulance or to summon medical help, and instead told Matthew to"SHUT THE FUCK UP [the exact words used]." 42. Eventually, BART Police officer Doe 7, without provocation,justification or consent, suddenly grabbed Matthew's throat with his open hand between his thumb and four fingers,threw Matthew's back hard against the one of the clear plexiglass windscreens surrounding the benches on the platform, held Matthew pinned against the plexiglass and chocked Matthew's windpipe hard for ten (10)full seconds,thereby preventing Matthew from breathing for as long, all the while screaming at the top of his lungs into Matthew's face, "SHUT THE FUCK UP [the exact words used]." 43. Thereafter, BART Police officer Doe 8 swung Matthew around violently to handcuff him. BART Police officers Doe 7, Doe 8 and Doe 9 then forcibly removed all three Claimants from the platform, and out of the .Lafayette Station. Whereupon, BART Police CLAIM AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITY-MATTHEW SAMUELS v.BART,ETA1_ 7 officers Doe 7, Doe 8 and Doe 9 abandoned the seriously-injured Maxwell Samuels on the cold concrete of the sidewalk immediately outside of the station building without medical attention, then violently threw the handcuffed Matthew Samuels into the back of one of the waiting police cars. 44. Just as BART Police officer Doe 7 was about to drive away in the police car with Matthew Samuels handcuffed in the back, he received a call on the police radio of a report of a fight breaking out at the Pleasant Hill Station. Whereupon, Doe 7 demanded that Matthew get out of the car, then un-cuffed him. When Matthew asked Doe 7 what was happening, Doe 7 responded, "DON'T FUCKING BOTHER ME, I'VE GOT MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO DEAL WITH,"or to similar effect, then got in his police car and sped off along with all of the other police officers, Doe 8 and Doe 9. 45. Because the BART Police officers had failed to summon medical attention as requested for the seriously-injured Maxwell Samuels before they left them at the now-abandoned Lafayette Station, Claimants had to telephone friends in Antioch,who drove all the way down to Lafayette to pick them up and to take all Claimants directly to a nearby hospital. 46. Maxwell Samuels was x-rayed and found to have a possible skull fracture and internal bleeding of his brain that was causing pressures to build up inside his skull. He was advised that he could die unless a hole was drilled into his head to relieve the pressure, and he was in fact kept in the Intensive Care Unit of the hospital for two full days. Claimants Matthew Samuels and Jeremy Garner also suffered serious physical injuries, as well as pain and suffering. 47. In addition to their physical injuries, Claimants have suffered sever emotional scarring,in that they are now afraid to go out in public, and cannot use BART as a means of transportation anymore because they fear the BART Police, and fear that they will run into some of the 30 criminal assailants who had beaten thein up. Such physical and emotional injuries have also proximately caused other damages,such as loss of income and inability to work, and have caused them to withdraw socially and to distrust all authority figures, such as the police of any jurisdiction, not just the BART Police. 48. As a common carrier providing passage to persons of the public for reward,BART and its employees owed heightened duty of care under CC §§ 2100,et seq. to use the utmost care and diligence to ensure their passengers' safe carriage,and had heightened duty to provide everything necessary for that purpose and to exercise to that end a reasonable degree of skill. BART and its employees were negligent in failing to exercise such heightened duty of due care. As a proximate result of such negligence, Claimants and each of them suffered severe physical bodily injuries and emotional distress, as well as other general, special and consequential damages, for which Claimants seek monetary damages with this Claim. 49. Claimants are informed and believe, and based thereon allege,that BART and its public employees' mandatory,non-discretionary and ministerial duty imposed by enactment that is designed to protect against the risk of the particular bind of injury arising from such incidents in such circumstances as alleged in this Claim(as such duty is defined by CLAIM AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITY-MATTHEW SAMUELS V.BART,ETAL. 8 Govt.C. § 815.6; hereinafter"§ 815.6 mandatory duty") is for the train operator to use the train's radio to report the incident to the BART employee traffic controller, dispatcher and/or station agent, proceed to the next station and then stop and hold the train until BART police officers arrive to control the situation. Claimants are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that said § 815.6 mandatory duty is imposed by enacted statutes, ordinances or regulations,or by rules and procedures promulgated or adopted pursuant to such enactments. 50. Upon arrival at the Oakland City Center/12th Street Station, Doe 1 train operator, Does 2 through 6 traffic controllers, dispatchers and/or station agents breached said § 815.6 mandatory duty by failing to stop and hold the train to wait for BART Police officers to arrive and take control of the situation. Instead, Doe 1 train operator immediately closed the train doors,thereby falsely imprisoning Claimants inside the canto expose them to further beatings, and proceeded to the next station(Oakland 19th Street Station)as though nothing were wrong. Doe 1 train operator, Does 2 through 6 traffic controllers, dispatchers and/or station agents continued and repeated this pattern of negligent, intentional or reckless disregard of Claimants' safety, suffering and well-being at five stations (Oakland City Center/12th Street, 19th Street Oakland,MacArthur, Rockridge and Orinda),thus trapping Claimants for them to continue getting beaten by the criminal assailants for nearly 20 minutes for over 15 miles spanning seven stations,three cities, two counties and eight zip codes. As a proximate result of such breaches, Claimants and each of them suffered severe physical bodily injuries and emotional distress,as well as other general, special and consequential damages, for which Claimants seek monetary damages with this Claim. 51. Claimants allege that the public entity and public employee Claimees failed to plan for, manage, allocate and implement adequate train and car resources,crowd control procedures and police protection for the special New Year's late-night train service, thereby negligently causing"dangerous conditions"that created substantial risk of injury on the premises of such stations and on the tracks therebetween and in the trains situated thereon,all owned and controlled by the Claimees including the Counties, as the term and concept"dangerous condition"is defined and used by Govt.C. §§ 830, et seq.,and §§ 840, et seq. As a proximate result such dangerous conditions,negligently created and maintained, Claimants and each of them suffered physical bodily injuries and emotional distress, as well as other general,special and consequential damages, for which Claimants seek monetary damages with this Claim. 52. Claimees' acts and omissions claimed above give rise to an action for Common Carrier liability under California Civil Code §§ 2100,et seq. 53. Claimees' acts and omissions claimed above give rise to an action under Govt.C. § 815.6 for damages for Claimant's injuries proximately caused by Claimees' failure to discharge mandatory duties imposed by enactments that were designed to protect against the risk of a particular kind of injury that Claimant suffered. 54. Claimees' acts and omissions claimed above give rise to an action under Govt.C. §§ 830, et seq., and §§ 840,et seq. for damages for Claimant's injuries proximately caused by CLAIM AGAINST Pumc ENTITY--MATTHEW SAMUELS V.BART,E'TAL 9 the dangerous conditions that Claimees negligently caused to exist on premises owned and controlled by Claimees,which Claimees had notice of. 55. Claimees' acts and omissions claimed above give rise to an action for false imprisonment by non-police officer employees of Claimees. 56. Claimees' acts and omissions claimed above give rise to an action for false arrest and false imprisonment by the police officer employees of Claimees. 57. Claimees' acts and omissions claimed above give rise to an action for assault and battery. 58. Claimees' acts and omissions claimed above give rise to an action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. 59. Claimees' acts and omissions claimed above give rise to an action for negligent infliction of emotional distress. 60. Claimees' acts and omissions claimed above give rise to an action for negligence. 61. As a direct and proximate result of Claimees' acts and omissions claimed above, Claimants and each of them suffered bodily injuries and emotional distress,as well as other general,special and consequential damages. 62. Under Govt.C. § 91€}(f),Claimants state that the amount of damages at this date of the claim.exceeds $10,000, and that the jurisdiction over this Claim rests in the Unlimited Jurisdiction division of the Superior Court. 63. Claimants are exercising their rights under Govt.C. § 910.4 to present its Claim other than on the official form., if any, prescribed by the San Francisca Bay Area Rapid'Transit District, Contra Costa County,Alameda County, and City and County of San Francisco. DATED. June"2004 Respectfully submitted, JEFFREY G.NEVIN LA C fJRATIUN 6 - - Jeffrey G.Nevin Attorneys for Claimants JEREMY GARNER, MAXWELL SAMUELS and MATTHEW SAMUELS CLAIM AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITY-MATTHEW SAMUELS V.BART,ETAG 10 PROOF OF SERVICE I, Thomas H. Kawaii,declare and state as follows: I am over 18 years of age,and not a party to the herein action. My business address is within the county in which the service took place. On June_, 2004,I served the attached: 1. Claim against Public Entity—Matthew Samuels v. BART,et aL; and 2. This Proof of Service by personally delivering the original thereof and however many copies requested to the following party at the following place at the fallowing address: San Francisco Bay Area Transit District District Secretary c/o Administration/Legal 800 Madison Street Oakland, CA 94607 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June 2004, in San Francisco, California. Thomas H. Kawaii CLAIM AGAINST P'unuc ENTITY—MATTHEW SAMUELS V.BART,ETAL. PROOF OF SERVICE I, Tiffany N. Townsend, declare and state as follows: I am over 18 years of age, and not a party to the herein action. I am employed within the City and County of San Francisco, California. On June_jq,2004, I served the attached: 3. Crim against Public Entity--Matthew Samuels v. BART,et al.; and 4. This Proof of Service by enclosing the original thereof and two copies in a sealed envelopes, and placing the envelopes with fully prepaid First Class Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested postage thereon in the United States Mail in San Francisco, California, addressed as follows. Alameda County Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder Clerk-Recorder 1106 Madison Street, Room 101 822 Main Street Oakland, CA 94607 P.O. Box 355 Martinez, CA 94553 City and County of San Francisco Controller's Office City Fall 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 396, San Francisco, CA 94102-4694 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June 2j_; 2004,in San Francisco,California. Tif any . Townsend CLAIM AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITY-MATTHEW SAMUELS v.BART,ETAL. 1 CLAIM BC?ARD OF SUR4 &VISM OF CONTBA COSTA COUNTY 6 ,pf 'BOARD AC110NAU0UST 31__2004 Claim Against the County, or District Governed by } the Board of Supervisors,Routing Endorsements, } NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Beard Action, All Section referees ar 5 ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your California Government _; -, } notice of the action taken on your claire by the _ {: Board of Supervisors. (Paragraph 1V below), giver " '`'"} Pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and ti 915.4. Please note all"Warnings". AMOUNT: $1.,000,000. or according to proof. (Damages ongoing) CLAIMANT: KELLY JOHN CHIASSON ATTORNEY: UNKNOWN DATE RECEIVED: .TUNE 29, 2004 ADDRESS: 1.627 GRANT STREET, APT. C BY DELIVERY TO CLERK.ON:JUNE 29, 2004 BERKELEY, CA 94703 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: FROM: Clerk of the Board of'Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. JOHN SWEET , Dated: JUNE 29, 2004 By: Deputy. ZI. Ffi.OM: County Counsel. - TO: Clerk of the.Board of Supe tsors (t y-'This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. t { ) This Claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Beard cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim(Section 911.3). ( } Other: Dated: <. x ay. }f By, Deputy County Coon; III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel(1) County Administrator(2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant(Section 911.3). ISI RD ORDER.: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present: ( This Claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this elate. Dated: sfig 4DHN SWEETEN, CLERK., By ,Deputy Clerk WARNING(Gov. cede section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six(6)months from the date this notice was personally served or deposit in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. *For Additional Warning See Reverse Side of This Notice. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I declare under penalty of perjury that I am,now, and at all times herein mentioned,have been a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California,postage ful prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the claimant as shown above. Dated: a HN SWEETEN, CLERK By Deputy Clea C{"to; BOARD OF SMRVMORS OF Ct1I+lM COSTA COUNTY E A. C]"Ims MIOWS W caust 0 Won for depth or "dwy to persmartoposmalProputy Or Ww aS omps a s *a at M abet 31; 1997,gilt btt pe�teed WX Yater t OW 10&city efla ft mai of the cause of aakm CWMS rd US to cis oraWon fbirdWh m fix injury 16 at to proal pry or roving crape atm which*=vw 00 or aft'Yams +'f, 192k nod be pr 09 lar am An Motos of a"ACMW ort Cann of tht"Man.Claims ref try 00W cm"e�"a�rein be paseted later tl1l"wc ( a+v"t Code 9112_), 1s. Claims mud be filed with the Clark ofths Dowd of 5t*Wvi2Dr5 at its a ut RMnltd,County Afth9wWon Mdlm 6511 ese SreK Mast=4 CA 34553. C. V dift b mast a district govaned by the Boar of ftparvfrather tMA the COVW ft Nam*of the Djg64 shta"be filled in. V_ Irom dalm is agai4a mom Ow to pe blit eaft aaparate cWMS man be filed spial cad pt c R. head. See penoq for Sudalm,daimk p'eW Code Sw.71 at dw and oftlds fes. •!f#t*i#�♦i 9/X11+�-01t#��###iRi#i11"iit*ii#+►t*i*##�'i i�i+ki#*#iifR*sit#+FiRi#ii♦moi#si*+#�ilrilat#ic�lr#i##1 RR: Mith By Rosa ved for Clerk's filing SUM > RECEIVED A afC aCc+staor 1 } JUN 2 9 2004 ` Ob ol,+ of Coxfm —mow CLERK 80APb OF SUPERVISORS int M) CONNA COSTA CO. lr The=ftrsigned c4Riit]t aw kwAt ma d"against the CooMy* m Coo*or tba abed MOW in the sum of S I 0 ���fa r�c�e f �< � �?tq vwnwb�Ac��s�d+U� 1, Who did do dwap ami ty ooW(&Me>9M data f 'd2 aiv �a, tC CZ/ GS 4/tcrtny � yh t7Set Ade C?hias, wis fi c Ln c�vs y, 3. 1 tar tta t# ► l44 , c��dtrn! t delly 7L Le ry G'hl iss I� , I iV &-2i7, 0s-ta, �n cvr cin no . e,?OA6 1 - 1 , m/as grrn#�d Yas ccs Pkta t, 'OA tri fVm"' pp�' V.t�M .+� C c C vn 'rt Gav�cd gnat W - t�Y Yet act:ve, UNi l czj fes' i f W&4 Arrv'X�s )-00 s' Cf mus kr?alc� etarwftt also �G� hcs i 0 b cis a re- if � ' . AIM klfleA ahwl�,f/I Y-6, wait lvf aaaw A,4-�n -ft OW JU en S7 Jun 28 04 02: 14p Ke I I!d CCS i asson t 72'7 T 58101971 P. 3 j UN-27-224 23:40 FROM: TO-17275810971 P.P X 34 14121 C04M CDSFR CMX Y CUaRK OF IM Ymr342idbV r+w#.M-Me om boy w dwMPT t% � '` L Dry7110WT Ug*WVWAJ AT Tb'% InM �# m etw ar two bradodord W) I.• s Ft., ll`- c 45wv ffr iN IUA Ott abWA Air. Wcsifo'L 1 &S evaL ?. ow swowt SCOO&O 0*ado" o , of ars77w, 4ta� d�x�n4�JaE;e-s �vtrr y Wi4l be AdfrhttneA J�D ipfw , kvf /of rte t #. Fe a; cov4* 04ok r , N 400^ rid• S` `? { tit a+ w Y kil pmueA +r+#�R#t+ s�tlEsrlrs��iiasa�+l�lrsi#�i+rarprs#+IwF�+�tlsss�tl+IHr�s#i�+ta�+►s+�t��l+ � s+►s�+�rs�ss�r W OtAMMMW iIg1�MMIUwM IiI�M9�llllinf111 ylYrtl�liili+V+t" ��� �IIlir;rlii�lll11.1�iylIiyoyYy i �y�ly��1y i � ��� � ���ia�a�W�iap 1111! '►�!�T�i�i�+!�'�III.#!►T�1AI�T� �'FiEi�T`I7�� i� A"'��"�s'��"^�� � OWN T2ftdCmkp-vWw- vft7I�IMCIM1fitpM111 �iN�lwei�r .1Otfl�oorsMM��Itl�llr�'1M�wIE�'�R� �`��►�r mow 1�1� iM1��l�tli' �I�IB��RI��MIirrIiIIM6�►��+1�'AIgE � � CLAIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY • BOARD ACTION: AUGUST 03, 2004 Claim Against the County, or District Governed by ) the Board of Supervisors,Routing Endorsements, } NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your California Government Codes. ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors. (Paragraph IV below), giver Pursuant to Government Cade Section 913 and l ase note all"Warnings". { AMOUNT: EXCEEDS $10,000. J 0 4 MAXWELL SAMUELS i CLAIMANT: .t _ ATTORNEY: JEFFREY G. NEVIN, ESQ. DATE RECEIVED: JULY 02, 2004 ADDRESS: JEFFREY G. NEVIN LAW CORPORATION BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: JUIY 02, 2004 50 CALIFORNIA STRE,ET, SUITE 1500 RECEIVED THROUGH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: INTBOFFICE MAIL FROM CLERK RECORDE. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. JOHN SWEE EN, rk Dated: JULY 02, 2004 By: Deputy 11. FFO—M: County Counsel. TO: Clerk of the Board of Sup isors (.J--This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. { ) This Claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). { } Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim(Section 911.3). ( ) Other: Dated: By: .E � r r :,;� >= Deputy County Coun,, III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator(2) { ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant(Section 911.3). II�V.. 130ARD ORDER.: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present: This Claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Dated JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK,By , Deputy Clerk WARNING(Gov. cads recti n 913) Subjor deposit in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Cade Section 945.5. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. *For Additional Warning See Reverse Side of This Notice. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now,and at all times herein mentioned,have been a citizen of the United States, over age 18, and that today I deposited in the United States Postai Service in Martinez, California, postage full prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the claimant as shown above. Dated °&�' OHN SWEETEN, CLERK By Deputy Clei ORIGINAL AIM AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITIES AND PUBLIC EMPLtd'Ygk. 0 N California Government Code § 910 MAXWELL SAMUELS hereby claims against the SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAIZ V TRANSIT DISTRICT, a district and joint powers authority, and its employees DOE 1 through DQE 50,inclusive, COUNTY OF CONTRA:COSTA,a political subdivision of California, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, a political subdivision of California, and CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a merged jurisdiction political subdivision of California,by making the following statement by and through counsel in support of his Claim: 1. Claimant's name is Maxwell Samuels, a natural person(hereinafter"Claimant"). 2. Claimant Maxwell Samuels' postal address is 5751 Bridgehead Road, Space 31, Oakley, CA 94561. 3. Notices concerning the Claim should be sent to Claimant's attorney of record,Jeffrey G. Nevin,Esq.,Jeffrey G.Nevin Law Corporation, 50 California Street, Suite 1500, San Francisco,California 94111. 4, The public entity claimed against is the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District,a district and joint powers authority(hereinafter"BART")which committed acts and omissions relevant to this Claim through its Boards, Commissions,Departments,Bureaus and other units including but not limited to its BART Police Department,as well as against BART's public employees consisting of; a. Doe 1,to be identified:as the BART employee who was the operator of the BART train at issue in this Claim, b. Does 2 through�6, inclusive,to be identified as the BART employees who were the dispatchers, traffic controllers and/or station agents who were controlling the movement of, and had the mandatory duty to step and hold,the BART train at issue in this Claim, C. Doe 7,to be identified as that BART employee who was one of three police officers with the BART Police Department who interacted with Claimant at the Lafayette Station during the incident claimed herein, specifically that older Caucasian uniformed police officer with grey hair who grabbed co-Claimant Matthew Samuels's throat and choked him; d. Doe 8, to be identified as that BART employee who was one of three police officers with the BART Police Department who interacted with Claimant at the Lafayette Station during the incident claimed herein, specifically that Asian uniformed police officer who appeared to be in charge, and who handcuffed and arrested co-Claimant Matthew Samuels, and who Claimant is informed and believe may be named"Officer N u en"; e. Doe 9,to be identified as that BART employee who was one of three police officers with the BART Police Department who interacted with Claimant at the CLA m ACAmN$T PUBLic ENTITY-MAXWELL SAMUELS V.BARS,ETA I- I Lafayette Station during the incident claimed herein, specifically that younger Caucasian uniformed police officer who assisted Doe 7 and Doe 8; f. Does 10 through 19,to be identified as those BART employees who were the police officers with the BART Police Department who responded to a call at the West Oakland Station to break up a fight between a group of Caucasian male youths and a group of African-American male youths on a train that was stopped and held there in the incident claimed herein; and f. Does 20 through 50,inclusive,to be identified as other BART employees whose acts and omissions proximately caused the injuries and damages to Claimant, as well as against the County.of Contra Costa, a political subdivision of California, County of Alameda, a political subdivision of California, and City and County of San Francisco, a merged:jurisdiction political subdivision of California, (hereinafter collectively the "Counties"), which Counties owned or controlled the premises upon which the tortious and other wrongful acts and omissions claimed herein were committed and upon which premises Claimant suffered his injuries and damages claimed herein,and. which Counties are signatories of the joint powers agreement that established BART under Govt.C. §§ 895, et seq., and§§ 6500, et seq., and are therefore jointly and severally liable with BART and with each ether under Govt.C. § 895.2 for liabilities arising from the acts and omissions of BART and its employees (BART, the Doe BART employees and the Counties hereinafter collectively the"Claimees"). 5. Claimant was prevented from obtaining the information necessary to determine the identities and true names of the public employees claimed against herein as Does due to the positive acts and willful omissions of BART and its BART Police Department and its employees, who expressly refused to provide Claimant with copies of the police report on the incident claimed herein,despite reasonable, timely and proper requests having been made to the Custodian of Records of the BART Police Department. 6. The torts, violations and other wrongful acts and omissions of said Doe BART public employees, and each of them,occurred within the scope of their employment with BART. 7. Claimee BART is liable for the torts,violations and other wrongful acts and omissions of its public employees under the principle of respondeat superior made applicable by Govt.C. §§ 815.2(a), 820(a). 8. Claimant alleges on information and belief that each Claimee acted as the agent, alter ego, privy,conspirator and aider and abettor of each and every other Claimee. At all relevant times,each Claimee was acting within the scope of such agency, conspiracy and relationship at the time the wrongful actions alleged herein were committed. 9. Claimant's claims against Claimees in this Claim"accrued" (as that term is used in Govt.C. § 901)no earlier than on January 1, 2004. CLAIM!AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITY-MAXWELL SAMUELS v.}SART,ETAL 2 10. Claimant's claims are brought in conjunction with the Claims of Jeremy Garner and. Matthew Samuels arising out of the same incident and transaction, but who bring identical but separate Claims in compliance with Nguyen v. Los An eles County Harbor/JCLA Medical Center, 8 Cal.AppAth 729, 733, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 709(1992) (Jeremy Gamer,Maxwell Samuels and Matthew Samuels hereinafter collectively "Claimants," in the plural). 11. Claimants and each of them are young males who were between 20 and 21 years of age at time of the incident at issue in this Claim. Maxwell and Matthew Samuels are biological twin brothers, and are close friends with Jeremy Garner. At all relevant times herein, they were,and are, domiciled and resident in the County of Contra Costa in the State of California. 12. Shortly before her death,Maxwell and Matthew's mother presented the twins with a set of matching gold chain necklace and charm. These gold chains and charms held great sentimental value to each of'the twins,since they symbolized their band to each other and to their beloved deceased mother. At the time of the incident herein, Claimant Matthew Samuels was wearing such chain and charm. 13. On the night December 31,2003, Claimants decided to treat themselves and two of their girlfriends for a rare night out in San Francisco to enjoy the public New Year's Eve celebrations at the Justin Herman Plaza in or near the Embarcadero Center and near the Ferry Building, and to observe the public fireworks show nearby. 14. To transport themselves to said public event in San Francisco, Claimants selected as their mode of transportation that certain common carrier conveyance commonly known as "BART"trains that are owned and operated by Claimees. 15. Claimants were induced to make such choice of transportation by Claimees' public announcements that BART and its employees would be running special New Year's late- night BART trains past the usual closing time of midnight to take the New Year's Eve celebrants home that particular night. Indeed, said public service announcements on television,radio,print and the Internet promoted and recommended BART's special New Year's late-night train service as the safe and sensible transportation choice for the celebrants. 16. Claimants, as well as other members of the public, were also induced to make such choice of transportation by Claimees' erroneous or false public announcements that BART fares would be waived and passage would be free for said special New Year's late-night train service. Such public announcements were false,in that Claimants and all other passengers within Claimants' personal knowledge were, in fact, required to pay full fare for passage on said special late--night train service. 17. Claimants, and each of them,purchased lawful passage uponi the BART train common carrier conveyance operated by Claimees,and boarded such trains at the Pittsburg/Bay Point Station to travel to the Embarcadero Station in San Francisco. CLAIM AGAINST Pu$LIc ENTrrY--MAX ELL SAMUELS Y.BART,ETA1_ 18. At the public New Year's Eve celebrations in San Francisco, Claimants and their girlfriends felt uncomfortable with the rowdy behavior by obviously inebriated members of the crowd at such public fireworks event, and therefore decided to seek the perceived safety of the BART trains and head home immediately upon the conclusion of the fireworks show shortly after the stroke of midnight on January 1, 2004,that rang in the New Year. 19. Upon arriving at and entering the Embareadero Station shortly after midnight, Claimants discovered after it was too late that Claimees had failed to plan for and implement the necessary crowd control procedures for the sudden surge and influx of passengers attempting to beard.BART trains at the Embarcadero Station to use the special New Year's late-night train service,and thus Claimees had negligently created dangerous conditions upon their premises due to their failure to exercise due care, even.though Claimees should have known of the need for such crowd control arising shortly after midnight on January l of every year. The crowd inside the Embarcadero Station was so uncontrolled, that certain of the Claimants and their girlfriends got separated in the milling mass of humanity. 20. Claimants and their two girlfriends boarded one of said special New Year's late-night BART trains at the Embarcadero Station in San Francisco for their return transportation back home. They all boarded the same car of an east-bound Pittsburg/Bay Point train, but Claimant Matthew Samuels was separated from the remaining two Claimants and their girlfriends. Even after they boarded the train car,they could not find each other in that same train car because Claimees negligently allowed the passengers to pack into each of the limited number of available cars life sardines shoulder-to-shoulder, and , movement within the car was impassible for most passengers. 21. In failing to schedule and supply enough trains and cars to transport passengers that they had invited,encouraged and persuaded to use the special New 'Y'ear's late-night train service,and in failing to plan for and implement the necessary crowd control procedures for the trains in light of their prior knowledge of the surge and influx in the number of passengers, Claimees had negligently created dangerous conditions upon the premises of the trains and their cars. 22. Unbeknownst to Claimants at the time they boarded said train car, a fight was already brewing within that car from prior stations between a group of Caucasian male youths and a group of African-American male youths. After the train got under way from the Embarcadero Station and was traversing through the Transbay Tube, such fight then erupted into actual violence in transit somewhere between the Embarcadero Station and the Oakland West Station. 23. Doe 1 train operator, Does 2 through d traffic controllers, dispatchers and/or station agents,and Does 10 through 19 BART Police officers had actual knowledge of that first fight occurring in that car of said train because the train was stepped and held at the Oakland West Station and met by said Does 10 through 19 BART Police officers. CLAIM AGAINST PVRLIC ENTITY--MAXWELL SAMUELS v.BART,4T AL 4 24. Although said Dues 10 through 19 BART Police officers stepped the fight, the manner in which they did so negligently created a dangerous condition within said car of said train in which Claimants were riding. Said Does 10 through 19 BART Police officers separated the black combatants from the white combatants,but off-loaded only the black combatants at the Oakland Vilest Station, leaving the white combatants remaining in the same car of the train to continue with their journey. Claimees reasonably should have known that the white combatants--already inebriated,punchy and primed for a fight-- would soon start other fights to victimize innocent passengers, such as Claimants. 25. Indeed,shortly after the train departed the Oakland West Station to resume its journey, the white combatants struck and began beating innocent bystanders Jeremy garner and Maxwell Samuels for no reason other than that they happened to be there in the wrong place at the wrong time. The white combatants would gang up a few at a time to take turns beating on Claimants Jeremy Garner and Maxwell Samuels;then called over their cohorts Brom other parts of the car and other cars of the train to join in and participate in this one-sided beating. Eventually;approximately 30 white assailants were beating on Claimants Jeremy Garner and Maxwell Samuels;who were defenseless because they were grossly out-numbered. Even after they crouched into fetal positions on the floor to defend against blows from fists,they continued to get"kneed"and kicked in the head and elsewhere, and suffering serious injuries such as a possible skull fracture and internal brain bleeding. 26. Doe 1 train operator and Does 2 through 6 traffic controllers, dispatchers and/or station agents had actual knowledge of the violence re-starting after the Oakland Nest Station because Claimants are informed and believe that bystander passengers of that car and nearby cars used the train's intercom system to call and inform Doe 1 train operator of the beating,who in tarn used the train's radio to inform Does 2 through 6 traffic controllers,dispatchers and/or station agents. 27. Doe 1 train operator had actual knowledge of the violence re-starting after the Oakland West Station because female bystander passengers were screaming hysterically,and Doe 1 train operator repeatedly announced over the PA system of the train,"I hear ya, stop smoking and settle down,"or to similar effect. 28. Doe 1 train operator had actual knowledge of the violence re-starting after the Oakland West Station because he deliberately and repeatedly kept"slamming"on the brakes of the train to shake the cars violently in an effort to disrupt the fight. 29. Doe 1 train operator had actual knowledge of the violence re-starting after the Oakland West Station because at every station between Oakland West and Lafayette, innocent bystander passengers literally tumbled out en masse out the doors in panic, some on their hands and knees because they were piling over one another in a panicked effort to egress the cars of the train to escape the violence therein. 30. Even though all innocent passengers in thenar(especially Claimants)wanted to egress at the first possible station to escape the violence, Doe 1 train operator negligently, deliberately or with reckless disregard prematurely closed the doors before all passengers CLAIM AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITY-MAXWELL SAMUELS V.BART,Eras. 5 who wanted to get off got off,thereby falsely imprisoning all of them who could not get out in time. This pattern of negligent,intentional or callous indifference to the passengers' health and safety continued and was repeated at five stations: Oakland City Center/12th Street, 19th Street Oakland, MacArthur, Rockridge and Orinda. 31. By the time the train approached the Orinda Station,the crowd inside the car in which the beating was taking place had thinned out enough(due the handfuls of passengers escaping at each of the preceding three stations)to permit Claimant Matthew Samuels in the other part of the car to reach his twin brother Maxwell and their good friend Jeremy Garner to attempt to come to their aid and rescue. Whereupon,the 34 white assailants began beating Matthew Samuels also, and in the process ripped off and took his gold chain necklace and charm,a gift from his deceased mother that held great sentimental value. Matthew implored upon the assailants to return the gold chain,but to no avail. 32. Eventually, Matthew Samuels was able to seize an opportunity to escape out of the car when the train arrived at the Lafayette Station. Whereupon,Matthew immediately ran on the Lafayette Station's platform to the first car of the train to tell Doe 1 train operator, "Stop the train HERE,call the police NOW,"or to similar effect. 33. Whereupon,Doe 1 train operator,Does 2 through 6 traffic controllers,dispatchers and/or station agents, and the BART Police finally and belatedly decided to stop and hold the train at the Lafayette Station to await arrival of BART Police officers. 34. Far from being rescued by the BART Police at the Lafayette Station,however,Claimants were subjected to further physical and emotional abuse and other tortious and unlawful behavior by these same police officers who Claimants were relying upon to rescue them and to administer justice upon the group of criminal assailants who had beaten them up. 35. Upon physically separating the criminal assailants from Claimants, with the criminal assailants in the train and Claimants on the platform, Claimants tried to explain to BART Police officers Doe 7, Doe 8 and Floe 9 what had happened,but the said police officers were rude, abrupt and disinterested,and ignored Claimants' pleas for help. Claimant Matthew Samuels finally had to implore the officers to go with him back into the train. car, where Matthew proceeded to identify those criminal assailants still on the train who had committed the beatings and therefore felony crimes of assault and battery,by pointing to them and saying"him,him,him, him,him,etc."and asked said police officers to take down their names so that criminal charges could be filed. The said police officers,however,ignored Matthew's request, ordered him back off the train, and told him to "SHUT THE FUCK UP [the exact wards used]." 36. Whereupon, Matthew requested that the officers at least retrieve the gold chain necklace and charm that the criminal assailants had stolen from him,since it held great sentimental value as a gift from his deceased mother. The officers, however, ignored Matthew's request, and instead told him to "SHUT THE FUCK UP [the exact words used]." The criminal assailants inside the train heard this, however, and began laughing and mocking Claimants about"mommy's"necklace that they had stolen. CLAim AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITY--MAXWELL SAMUELS v.BART,ETAI. 6 37. Then,to Claimants' utter disbelief, shock and dismay,BART Police officers Doc 7,Doe 8 and/or Doe 9 radioed BART dispatchers to order the train operator to close the doors and have the train proceed on its way. At seeing this, Claimants protested and complained loudly to the said police officers,who responded by telling them to"SHUT THE FUCK UP [the exact words used]." 38. After the train doors closed and the train prepared to get underway,the criminal assailants inside the car were erupting with joy, glee and laughter because they had just committed multiple felonies, almost beat two of the Claimants to death, and were getting away scot-free with:the help and blessing of the BART Police without so much as their names being taken, and instead saw the BART Police turn against the victims by yelling at them repeatedly to"SHUT THE FUCK UP [the exact words used]." 39. As a parting gesture of defiance, after the doors were closed and the.BART Police officers all had their backs turned to the train, one of the criminal assailants inside the train took out from his pocket the gold necklace and charm that he had stolen from Claimant Matthew Samuels, dangled it to full length, and swung it back and forth like a pendulum:to flaunt it in front of the BART car window, all the while laughing and mocking the Claimants. Upon seeing this,Claimants implored upon BART Police officers Doe 7, Doe 8 and Doe 9 to simply turn around and look at the train because the criminal assailants were displaying the chain that they stole from them,but said police officers instead told Claimants to"SHUT THE FUCK UP [the exact words used]." 40. When Claimants continued to complain and protest because the BART Police officers Doe 7,Doe 8 and floe 9 had just allowed upwards of 30 felons get away scot-free without so much as taking down their names, said police officers yelled in Claimant Matthew Samuels' face, "SHUT THE FUCK UP [the exact words used],"and proceeded to criminally assault, batter and falsely arrest and imprison Matthew. 41. Even after Matthew begged and implored upon BART Police officers Doe 7, Doc 8 and Doe 9 to call an ambulance and summon medical assistance for his twin brother Maxwell Samuels because he looked life he was dying from the injuries he received from the beating,said police officers ignored such requests and failed and refused to call an ambulance or to summon medical help, and instead told Matthew to"SHUT THE FUCK UP [the exact words used]." 42. Eventually, BART Police officer Doe 7, without provocation,justification or consent, suddenly grabbed Matthew's throat with his open hand between his thumb and four fingers, threw Matthew's back hard against the one of the clear plexiglass wind-screens surrounding the benches on the platform,held Matthew pinned against the plexiglass and chocked Matthew's windpipe hard for ten (10),full seconds,thereby preventing Matthew from breathing for as long, all the while screaming at the top of his lungs into Matthew's face, "SHUT THE FUCK UP [the exact words used]." 43. Thereafter, BART Police officer Doe 8 swung Matthew around violently to handcuff' him. BART Police officers Doe 7, Doe 8 and Doe 9 then forcibly removed all three Claimants from the platform, and out of the Lafayette Station. Whereupon, BART Police CLAIM AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITY-MAXWELL SAMUELS V.BART,ErAL. 7 officers Doe 7, Doe 8 and Doe 9 abandoned the seriously-injured Maxwell Samuels on the cold concrete of the sidewalk immediately outside of the station building without medical attention,then violently threw the handcuffed Matthew Samuels into the back of one of the waiting police cars. 44. Just as BART Police officer Doe 7 was about to drive away in the police car with Matthew Samuels handcuffed in the back.,he received a call on the police radia of a report of a fight breaking out at the Pleasant Mill Station. Whereupon, Doe 7 demanded that Matthew get out of the car,then un-cuffed him. When Matthew asked Doe 7 what was happening,Doe 7 responded,"DON'T FUCKING BOTHER ME,I'VE GOT MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO DEAL WITH,"or to similar effect,then got in his police car and sped off along with all of the other police officers, Doe 8 and Doe 9. 45. Because the BART Police officers had failed to summon medical attention as requested for the seriously-injured Maxwell Samuels before they left them at the now-abandoned Lafayette Station,Claimants had to telephone friends in Antioch, who drove all the way down to Lafayette to pick them up and to take all Claimants directly to a nearby hospital. 46. :Maxwell Samuels was x-rayed and found to have a passible skull fracture and internal bleeding of his brain that was causing pressures to build up inside his skull. He was advised that he could die unless a hole was drilled into his head to relieve the pressure, and he was in fact kept in the Intensive Care Unit of the hospital for two full days. Claimants Matthew Samuels and Jeremy Garner also suffered serious physical injuries,as well as pain and suffering. 47. In addition to their physical injuries, Claimants have suffered sever emotional scarring, in that they are now afraid to go out in public,and cannot use BART as a means of transportation anymore because they fear the BART Police, and fear that they will run into some of the 30 criminal assailants who had beaten them up. Such physical and emotional injuries have also proximately caused other damages, such as loss of income and inability to work, and have caused there to withdraw socially and to distrust all authority figures, such as the police of any jurisdiction,not just the BART Police. 48. As a common carrier providing passage to persons of the public for reward,BART and its employees owed heightened duty of care under CC §§ 2140, et seq. to use the utmost care and diligence to ensure their passengers' safe carriage, and had heightened duty to provide everything necessary for that purpose and to exercise to that end a reasonable degree of skill. BART and its employees were negligent in failing to exercise such heightened duty of due care. As a proximate result of such negligence, Claimants and each of them suffered severe physical bodily injuries and emotional distress,as well as other general, special and consequential damages, for which Claimants seek monetary damages with this Claim. 49. Claimants are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that BART and its public employees' mandatory, non-discretionary and ministerial duty imposed by enactment that is designed to protect against the risk of the particular kind of injury arising from such incidents in such circumstances as alleged in this Claim (as such duty is defined by CLAIM AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITY—MAXWELL SAMUEL$v.BART,ETAL 8 Govt.C. § 815.6; hereinafter" 815.6 mandatory duty") is for the train operator to use the train's radio to report the incident to the BART employee traffic controller,dispatcher and/or station agent,proceed to the next station and then stop and hold the train until BART Police officers arrive to control the situation. Claimants are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that said§ 815.6 mandatory duty is imposed by enacted statutes, ordinances or regulations, or by rules and procedures promulgated or adopted pursuant to such enactments. 50. Upon arrival at the Oakland City Center/12th Street Station, Doe 1 train operator,.Does 2 through 6 traffic controllers, dispatchers and/or station agents breached said § 815.6 mandatory duty by failing to stop and hold the train to wait for BART Police officers to arrive and take control of the situation. Instead, Doe 1 train operator immediately closed the train doors, thereby falsely imprisoning Claimants inside the car to expose them to further beatings, and proceeded to the next station(Oakland 19th Street Station)as though northing were wrong. Doe 1 train operator,Does 2 through 6 traffic controllers, dispatchers and/or station agents continued and repeated this pattern of negligent, intentional or reckless disregard of Claimants' safety, suffering and well-being at five stations (Oakland City Center/12th Street, 19th Street Oakland,MacArthur, Rockridge and Orinda),thus trapping Claimants for them to continue getting beaten by the criminal assailants for nearly 20 minutes for over 15 miles spanning seven stations, three cities, two counties and eight zip codes. As a proximate result of such breaches; Claimants and each of them suffered severe physical bodily injuries and emotional distress, as well as other general, special and consequential damages, for which Claimants seek monetary damages with this Claim. 51. Claimants allege that the public entity and public employee Claimees failed to plan for, manage,allocate and implement adequate train and car resources,crowd control procedures and police protection for the special New Year's late-night train service, thereby negligently causing"dangerous conditions"that created substantial risk of injury on the premises of such stations and on the tracks therebetween and in the trains situated thereon, all owned and controlled by the Claimees including the Counties, as the term and concept"dangerous condition"is defined and used by Govt.C. §§ 830,et seq., and §§ 840,et seq. As a proximate result such dangerous conditions negligently created and maintained, Claimants and each of them suffered physical bodily injuries and emotional distress,as well as other general, special and consequential damages, for which Claimants seek monetary damages with this Claim. 52. Claimees' acts and omissions claimed above give rise to an action for Common Carrier liability under California Civil Code §§ 2100, et seq. 53. Claimees' acts and omissions claimed above give rise to an action under Govt.C. § 815.6 for damages for Claimant's injuries proximately caused by Claimees' failure to discharge mandatory duties imposed by enactments that were designed to protect against the risk of a particular kind of injury that Claimant suffered. 54. Claimees' acts and omissions claimed above give rise to an action under Govt.C. §§ 830, et seq.,and §§ 840, et seq. for damages for Claimant's injuries proximately caused by CLAIM AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITY-MAXWELL SA!MUELS v.BART,ET AL. 9 the dangerous conditions that Claimees negligently caused to exist on premises owned and controlled by Claimees,which Claimees had:notice of 55. Claimees' acts and omissions claimed above give rise to an action for false imprisonment by non.-police officer employees of Claimees. 56. Claimees' acts and omissions claimed above give rise to an action for false arrest and false imprisonment by the police officer employees of Claimees. 57. Claimees' acts and omissions claimed above give rise to an action for assault and battery. 58. Claimees' acts and omissions claimed above give rise to an action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. 59. Claimees' acts and omissions claimed above give rise to an action for negligent infliction of emotional distress. 60. Claimees' acts and omissions claimed above give rise to an action for negligence. 61. As a direct and proximate result of Claimees' acts and omissions claimed above, Claimants and each of them suffered bodily injuries and emotional distress, as well as ether general, special and consequential damages. 62. Under Govt.C. § 91 0(f), Claimants state that the amount of damages at this date of the claim exceeds$10,000, and that the jurisdiction over this Claim rests in the Unlimited Jurisdiction division of the Superior Court. 63. Claimants are exercising their rights under Govt.C. §910.4 to present its Claim other than on the official form, if any,prescribed by the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, Contra.Costa County,Alameda.County, and City and County of San Francisco. DATED. June�004 Respectfully submitted, JEFFREY G.NEVIN LAW CORPORATION Jeffrey G.Nevin Attorneys for Claimants JEREMY GARNER., MAXWELL SAMUELS and MATTHEW SAMUELS CLAIM AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITY--MAXWELL SAMUELS V.BART,ET AL. 10 PROOF OF SERVICE 1,Thomas H. Kawaii, declare and state as follows: I am over 18 years of age, and not a party to the herein action. My business address is within the county in which the service took place. On June , 2004, I served the attached: 1. Claim against Pudic Entity—Maxwell Samuels v.BART,et aL; and 2. This Proof of Service by personally delivering the original thereof and however many copies requested to the following party at the following place at the following address: San Francisco Bay Area Transit District District Secretary c/o Administration/Legal 800 Madison Street Oakland,CA 94607 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June_, 2004, in San Francisco,California. Thomas H. K.awaii CLAIM AGAINST nJBLIC ENTITY---MAXWELL SAMUELS'V.BART,E'TAI- 1 1 PROOF OF SERVICE I,Tiffany N. Townsend, declare and state as follows. I am over 18 years of age, and not a party to the herein action. I am employed within the City and County of San Francisco,California. On June I_q,2004, I served the attached; 3. Claim against Public Entity--Maxwell Samuels v.BART,et al.; and 4. This Proof of Service by enclosing the original thereof and two copies in a sealed envelopes,and placing the envelopes with fully prepaid First Class Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested postage thereon in the UnitedStates Mail in San Francisco,California;addressed as follows. Alameda County Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder Clerk-Recorder 1106 Madison Street, Room, 101 822 Main Street Oakland,CA 94607 P.O. Brix 355 Martinez,CA 94553 City and County of San Francisco Controller's Office City hall 1 Dr. Carlton B. Ooodlett Place,Room 396, San Francisco, CA 94102-4694 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June 7-41 , 2004, in San Francisco,California. (2A Tiffany N. Townsend CLAIM AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITY--MAXWELL SAMUELS V.DART,FTAL 12 CLAIM 912AM i + PE VI OF-CONTRA COSTA COUNTY . CTI , N. UBT 03, 240 Claim Against the County, or District Governed by } the Board of Supervisors,Routing Endorsements, } NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action.All Section references are to } The copy of this document mailed to you is your California Government Codes. } notice of the action taken on your claim by the Beard of Supervisors. (Paragraph IV below), giv Pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all"Warnings" J,;J N AMOUNT: STMT. BEING COMPUTED CLAIMANT: JOYCE SASSE ATTORNEY: UNKNOWN DATE RECEIVED: JUNE 29, 2404 ADDRESS: 1020 AILEEN STREET, BY DELIVERY TO CLERK,ON40E 29, 2004 LAFAYETTE, CA 94549 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: JUNE 28, 2004 FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. Dated: JUNE 2912004JOHN SWEE Erk By: Deputy IT OM: County Counsel. TO: Clerk of the Board of Sup 'cors (,,,),"This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. b { ) This Claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days(Section 910.8). ( } Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim(Section 911.3). ( } Other: Dated: L B ;` '_' {%' Deputy Copty Cou 111. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel(1) County Administrator(2) ( } Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant(Section 911.3), IIV.ABOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present: ' This Claim is rejected in full. ( } Other I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Dated o f++G� JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK,By Deputy Clerk WARNING(Gov.cede section 13) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6)months from the date this notice was personally served or depo4 in the mail to.file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter.If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately.' `For Additional fatnin See Reverse Side of This Notice. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I declare under penalty ofperjury that I am now, and at all tunes herein mentioned,have been a citizen of the Unite( States, over age 18; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California,postage fi prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the claimant as shown above. Dated: TIN SWEETEN, CLERK.By Deputy Cl Claim to: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF COMA COSTA COUNTY INSTRUCTIONS TO CLAIMANT A. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury to person or to per- sonal property or growing craps and which accrue on or before December 31, 1987, must be presented not later than the 100th day after the accrual of the cause of action. Claims relating to causes of action for-death or for injury to person or to personal property or growing crops and Which accrue on or after January 1, 1988, ,must be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. Claims relating to any other cause of action cast be presented not later than one year after the accrual of the cause of action. (Govt. Code B. Claims must be filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at its office in Root: 106, County Administration Building, 651. Pine Street, Martinez, CA 94553. C. If claim is against a district governed by the Board of Supervisors, rather than/ the County, the name of the District should be filled in. D. If the claim is against more than one public entity, separate claims =,:st be filed against each public entity. E. ' Fraud. See penalty for fraudulent claims, Penal. Code Sec. 72 at the end of this fora. RE: Claim By ) Reserved for Clerk's filing stamp RECEIVED f � Y 1 Against the County of Contra Costa } JLJN 1.UM or ) ....... CLERK HOAM50F SUPF910SORS :1 F District) COIRTA e .,� . �., Fill in name ) The undersigned claimant hereby makes claim against, the County of Contra Costa or the above-named District in the sura of and in support of this claim represents as follows: 1. When did the damage or injury occur' (Give exact date and hour) cv r �" �✓ i J— �..�.�...�...�...r........���......—�....... ..�.......�.... ..... 2. Whe;* did the damage or injury occur? (Include city and county) f 3. How did the damage or injury ur? (G' e full details; use ex a paper if required) �4. iht par icular a t or omission on the part of county or district officers, servants ear .empl=oyees caused. the injury or damage? J .i'-'�-�' �iC.-`.-,x2.'--5•`; ,`"'�'l ��tj' � �,/ �.Z.- .�C:-C"�''...-�" ..�`..�- G°L L''--G-k=�=-�'_.��-. �; �.�- .x-,s�-c..,�..- . �j'�' -�'L %/ �.-rL..-z..c3 r- /� �--' -t,�s...o r„�� � ✓moi I i✓ 1` (over) J Wnat are tMe names of county or district officers, servants or employees causing the damage or injury? 5. What damage or injuries do you claim resulted? (Give mull extent of injuries or _ damages claimed. Attach two estimates for auto damage. 7. HOW wa the amoun ' l.aimed above mputed? (Include the �AI&Jed a;xaunt of/any prospective injury f - or damage.) �`-1 �• � '�� J f �^'�'` �---Civ �a.--'�_%G >£- �'f Names anaddresses of witnesses, doctors and hospital 01/ 9. List the expenditures you mae on account of this accident or injury: DATE ITEM , � � AMOUNT .+"" ./G-'��..�i.',..iC._--a'� �y'°_.,..,(l--t..•,.c..,P�� � �� `�..../l.,G�.,.3r:--•'�^2.-:-.-,(=-- p ��.--'- �rz-v"E".r'.�-�``1s_r,�4z����_. Gov. Code Sec. 910:2 provides: "The claim must be signed by the claimant SEND NOTICES TO: (Attorney) or bxjnn person on his behalf." Name and Address of Attorney s Signature {('f/'J^`^� Y✓ I- '1 4l a�+-Y, A- Add ` t l Telephone No. _ c, Telephone o. iE iF iE iF `'� f IT T NOTICE Section 72 of the Penal Code provides: "Every pe.-son who, with intent to defraud, presents for allowance or for, payment to any state board or officer, or to any county, city or district board or officer, authorized to allow or pay the same if genuine, any false or fraudulent claim, bill, account, voucher, or'writing, is punishable either by imprisoriment in the county jail. for a period of not more than one year, by a fine of not exceeding one thousand ($11000), or by both such imprisonment .and fine;• or by imprisonment in the state prison, by a fine of not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,0000 or by both such imprisonment and fine. , BC?ARI F SUPERVI CLAIM(JR$ OF CONTBA COSTA COUNTY + BtJAFC? ACTION-.,AUGUST AUGUS 03, 2004'' Claim Against the County, or District Governed by ) the ward of Supervisors,Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your California Government Codes. } notice of the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors. (Paragraph.IV below), giver Pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and 915.4.Please note all"Warnings". AMOUNT: UNKNOWN +'Y CLAIMANT: PATRL,&f BONNER ATTORNEY: ALLAN M. TABOR DATE RECEIVED: .JULY 01, 2004 ADDRESS: RYAN & TABOR BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON:JULY 01, 2004 11 EMBARCADERO WEST$ SUITE 1.30 OAKLAND, CA 94607w-4543 BY MAIL POST�IIt: ,TUNE 30, 2004 FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. JOHN SWEErk Dated: _ JULY-01) 2004 By. Deputy / Ti. No—M: County Counsel, TO: Clerk of the Board of Sup isors { ) This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. 1 {,,,'This Claire PAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The .Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). { ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim(Section 911;3). { } Other: Dated < r By .=: ,fy:. : �'' 4�,. Deputy County Coun III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel(1) County Administrator(2) { ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant(Section 911.3). IV. ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present: ( This Claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Dat JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK,By ,Deputy Clerk WARNING(Gov. codes tion 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six(6)months from the date this notice was personally served or deposi in the mail to.file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. *For Additional Warning See Reverse Side of This Notice. " AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned,have been a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California,postage fu] prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the claimant as shown above. Date � ETN SWEETEN, CLERK By Deputy Cie OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL SILVANO B.MARCHESI r COUNTY COUNSEL COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA Administration Building SHARON L. ANDERSON 651 Pine Street, 91" f=loor �� � ` �. CHIEF ASSISTANT Martinez, California 94553-1229 GREGORY C. HARVEY (925) 335-1800 VALERIE J. RANCHE (925) 646-1078 (fax) r .. Assismws NOTICE OF INSUFFICIENCY AND/OR NON-ACCEPTANCE OF CLAIM TO: Allan M. Tabor RYAN &.TABOR 11 Embarcadero West, Suite 130 Oakland, CA 94607 RE: CLAIM OF: Patrial Bonner Please Take Notice as Follows: The claim you presented against the County of Contra Costa or District governed by the Board of Supervisors fails to comply substantially with the requirements of California Government Code Section 910 and 910.2, or is otherwise insufficient for the reasons checked below: [ ] 1. The claim fails to state the name and post office address of the claimant. [ ] 2. The claim fails to state the post office address to which the person presenting the claim desires notices to be sent. [ X ] 3. The claim fails to state the date,place or other circumstances of the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the claim asserted. [ ] 4. The claim fails to state the name(s) of the public employee(s) causing the injury, damage, or loss, if known. [ ] 5. The claim fails to state whether the amount claimed exceeds ten thousand dollars ($10,000). If the claim totals less than ten thousand dollars($10,000), the claim fails to state the amount claimed as of the date of presentation, the estimated amount of any prospective injury, damage or loss so far as known, or the basis of computation of the amount claimed. [ ] 6. The claim is not signed by the claimant or by some person on his or her behalf. Page 1 [ ] 7. You are required to submit your claim on the proper form,which is enclosed. Please resubmit your claim on the enclosed form, including all the required information. Gov. Code, § 910.4. Please be aware that you have only a limited period of time in which to file an amended claim. See Gov. Code, § 910.6. [X ] 8. Other: Please provide date of accident, including day. SILVANO B. MARCHESI COUNTY COUNSEL } Monika L Cooper r Deputy County Counsel CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL (Code Civ.Proc., §§ 1012, 1013a,2015.5; Evid. Code, §§ 641,664) I am a resident of the State of California,over the age of eighteen years,and not a party to the within action. My business address is Office of the County Counsel, 651 fine Street, 9th Floor,Martinez,CA 94553-1229. On July 6,2004, I served a true copy of this Notice of Insufficiency and/or Non-Acceptance of Claim by placing the document in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Martinez, California addressed as set forth above. I am readily familiar with Office of County Counsel's practice of collection and processing of correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United States of America that the above is true and correct. Executed on July 6,2004, at Martinez,California. Paula Webb cc: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors(original) Risk Management Page 2 CLAIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD ACTION:'AUGUST 03,; 20{ Claim Against the County, or District Governed by ) the.Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action. All Section references are to } The copy of this document mailed to you is you California Government Codes. ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors. (Paragraph IV below), gi Pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all"Warnings". AMOUNT: UNKNOWN CLAIMANT: PATRIAL BONNER ATTORNEY: ALLAN M. TABOR DATE RECEIVED: JULY 01, 2004 ADDRESS: RYAN & TABOR BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON:JULY 01, 2004 11 EMBARCADERO WEST, SUITE 130 OAKLAND, CA 94607-4543 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: JUNE 30, 2004 FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. JOHN SWEE rk Dated: JULY 0112004 By: Deputy II. MOM: County Counsel. TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ( ) This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( ) This Claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim(Section 911.3). ( ) Other: Dated: By: Deputy County Cot III, FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel(1) County Administrator(2) { ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant(Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present: ( ) This Claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Dated: JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK,By , Deputy Clerk WARNING(Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six(6)months from the date this notice was personally served or depo in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. *For Additional Warning See Reverse Side of This Notice. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned,have been a citizen of the Unite States, over age 18; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, postage f prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the claimant as shown above. Dated: JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK By Deputy C 1 p Allan M. Tabor, State Bar No. 52846 �004 2 � RYAN &TABOR ,l r I 1 Embarcadero West, Suite 130 Oakland, California 94607-4543 4 Telephone (510) 444-5350 Facsimile (510) 444-5359 5 6 Attorneys for Claimant PATRIAL BONNER 7 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA- LIMITED JURISDICTION 10 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 11 12 PATRIAL BONNER, CLAIM FOR PERSONAL INJURIES 13 (Government Code Section 910) Claimant, 14 VS. 15 16 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, 17 Defendant. 18 19 Claimant, PATRIAL BONNER, presents the following claim against as follows: 20 a) Claimant lives at 1516 Sycamore Drive, #1, Antioch, California. 21 b) Notices are to be sent to Ryan&Tabor, 11 Embarcadero West, Suite 130, Oakland, 22 California 94607-4543. 23 24 c) On or about January 2004 at 2:30 p.m., plaintiff fell on the property of the 25 courthouse located in Martinez. 26 d) Claimant suffered soft-tissue injuries. 27}} e) Jurisdiction properly rests in the Superior Court, Limited Jurisdiction. RYAN&TABOR 28 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 11 EMBARCADERO WEST, SUITE 130 OAKLAND,CA 94607-4543 1510)444-5350 1 fj Names of public employees are unknown.. 2 3 4 Dated. June 28, 2004 RYAN &TABOR 5 6 7 ALLAN M. TABOR Attorney for Claimant 8 PATRIAL BONNER 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 277 RYAN&TAHOR 28 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 11£MSARCAOERO WEST, SUITE 130 OAKLAND,CA 84607-4543 (510)444-5350 LAW OFFICES OF RYAN & 'TABOR THOMAS M.RYAN (1930-1977) PORTOBELLO OFFICES SANTA ROSA ALLAN M.TABOR 11 EMBARCADERO WEST, SUITE 130 OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94607-4543 FACSIMILE: 510-444-5350 ` 510-444-5359 OF COUNSEL: r RONALD P. PEROTTI a.l1`9 So June 28, 2004 ` .�, CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED County of Contra Costa Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 RE: Patrial Bonner v County of Contra Costa Dear Gentlepersons: Enclosed please find an original and one copy of a Claim for Personal Injuries against the County of Contra Costa. Please file the original and return the conformed copy to this office in the envelope provided as soon as possible. Thank you. Yours truly, man M. Tabor AMTlcll Encl. CLAIM BOARD OF SUP'ERVIS�QRS OF CONTBA COSTA COUNTY ` BOARD ACTIONA.UG ST 03, 2004 Maim Against the County, or District Governed by ) the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your California Government Codes. ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors. (Paragraph IV below), give: Pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all"Warnings". AMOUNT: $300,000.00 CLAIMANT: CLIFFORD MEEKER AND SANDRA MEEKER ATTORNEY: THOMAS J. KAS`IER, ESQ. DATE RECEIVED: JULY 01, 2004 ADDRESS: LAW OFFICES OF ARNOLD LAUB BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON:JULY OI, 2004 807 MONTGOMERY STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA. 941.33 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: JUNE 29, 2004 FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. JULY Ol 2404 JOHN SWEE erk Dated: By: Deputy. II. MOM: County Counsel. TO: Clerk of the Board of Sup isors (v 'his claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ti { } This Claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim(Section 911.3). { ) Other: Dated: r ' w By: > ' .` jz - .. Deputy County Couns III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator(2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant(Section 911.3). . IV.JAYARD ORDER.: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present: , (1, This Claim is rejected in full. { ) Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Dated. % . JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK.,By ,Deputy Clerk WARNING(Gov. code s coon 913) 17 Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six(6)months from the date this notice was personally served or deposits in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. *For Additional Warning See Reverse Side of This Notice. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned,have been a citizen of the United States, over age 18, and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California.,postage full prepaid a certified copy of this Beard Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the claimant as shown above. Dated Z HN SWEETEN, CLERK By Deputy Clef: Claim to: 130 OF SUPERVISORS CONIMA COSTA COUNTY l: A_ Claims relating to caucs of action foIr dead,car for injury to sora or to personal props car growing crops and which aconic on or before De"mbtr 3 t, 198 a, must be presented not later than the i 00h day aver the accrual oftlre-.at)se of action. Claims relating to causes of Action for death or for injury to person or to personal prop or-growing crops and hich ac a on or ager Jant7R.sy 1, 1938, must bt= presented not later than six months after the accnial of thr,cause of act;on. Claims relating to any rAher ust:ofaction musi be presented not later than one ymr after the amruat of the asp- of action ( v"t Code 911.2.). D. Claims musl be filed vith the.Clark ofthe Board of Supervisors at its office-i"Room 106, County a dmini tion Building,651 Fine St �Maninw,, CA 94553, C. If claim is against a district governed by the Board of Supervisors,rather than the Counvy, the name of the District should be filled in. D, If the claim is against more than one public entity, separate claims must be filed against each public entity. . _-gud. See penalty for fraudulent claims,Penal Bode Sec. 72 at the end of this form. ClaifnBy CLIFFORD MEEKER Reserved for Cleric's filing stamp ANDRA :MEEKER . �_ Y EIV Against the County of Contra Costi Costor � JUL0 1 ?_,004 ;n ny .fft J "ill 1n name) The undersi rigid claimant hereby mA s claim a ainst the comrsty of Comm Costa or the above-named di re in the sam of 3 0 00�,. 0 0 ,and in support of Us oiolm represcm as follows: A, When did the damage or injury qcmnit(Give exact date and hour) March 6 , 2004 2. Whpra did the damage or injury a0, (bclude city mW n ) Contra Costa ' Regional Medical. Center 2.500 Alhambra. Ave. Martinez, CXR - 94553 . How dad the dama ,e or mju occur?{dive full details;use: xtr a r fry we'd Cin March 6, 004 C —E-for Meeker was .aami c 0 mer ency room at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and was told he might have lymphoma After diagnostic testsr cancer confirmed on March 12p, 2004 . Tissu.e from lymph node which was reviewed by pathologist .on May 20, 2003 and interpreted as behign Was re--:reviewed on or about March _`- 2, 2004 and diagnosis of mantle, cell lymphoma was trade .and conveyed to patient. ' Delay in diagnosis and treatment alloy-,7dd cancer to progress to Stade IV and spread throughout Clifford. Meeker's body, What ppaicular act sir€aanission do the pad of wunty or district officers, servant 9, 07 Miployees caused the inJuryorda age? Dr. oria Asuncion misread/mis erpreted tissue sample as benign for cancer on May 20, 2003 . Thomas 6v .ate, M.D. and Craig Desoer, M..D. failed to dry ,additional work--up for cancer, and diagnose and� trea.t it in light of patient' s persistent symptomology . S. What are tate nornes of vount'y or diwici officers, servants, or employees ca-using the da a c or injury? rt. Gloria Asuncion, M.D. Thomas White, M.D. Craig Desoer, M.D. . What damage oT injuries do you claim resulted?(Give ffiall extent of injuries or damages cl.a.imeA_ Attach two eshnAt g fOf attto d=age. As a result of failure to t mp_ly diagnose and treat cancer, it was allowed to progress•. and spread throughout Clifford Meeker' s body, and is now termina.l.agandr�aMeeker claims for loss of consortium and economic damages . 7How was the amount claimed abovo mputed? elude the eAllmated amount €sff"any prospective injury or damage.) $250, 000. for. general damages under MICRA $ 50 ,000 for special_ damages fog` lost income for-, Sandra Meeker, co-payments, medication,. and miscellaneous expenses for Clifford K Narne� aid addresses ofitnesses,dwors, and hospitals. Gloria Asuncion, M.D. , 2500, Alhambra. Ave. , Martinez, CA 94553 Thomas White, M.D. , 2500 Alhambra Ave. , Martinez, CA 94553 Craig Desoer, M.D. , 2311 Loveridge Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565 9. Lisl the expenditures you Made on acc€-unt of this accident or injury. PAIL im & I'r March-.May 2004 $11,677 .28 (lost. income. Sandra) Marc-May 2,004 $1,050 (transportation.) March--May 2004 $250 (medication) Gov. Code Sec, 910.2 provides "The claim must b sirneA by tete claimant or by some r n n his behalf.' I3` ' ttae Thomas J. ' 1�asf er Name and Address of Attu ey } THOMAS J. KASTER, ESQ. (#148776) LAW OFFICES OF .ARKOLD LAUB 807 Montgomery Street l*ta� non } San Francisco, CA 94133 807 Montgomery St. , San. Francisco, CA } lhrt 415-362-0101 415-362-0101 ,'Cal`.1athatY C s `dts: . TY penia vvhn,with imem to deftutt r m-waR for 010%wce rpt,The Payn,e9at to my mqu,board or vfficex,UT 10 any a :Aty,city,or&fid$b. .d W officcf,vathmiV4 to atlfty or pay the mmc if gmuine,my fafte w fta duleai chft,biA a=U vouc Mfr,eYwriling, is puWshable efflVaby impriwayamn in the n jMl for a pt6od of not more.than may r,by a fts an,% ant.fttwmd 01,0W),Of by toth sucb tmp srm,mot andr,,or by i pdsvwmw�t in the rlik.parirov,try 1 OV,2 of r=,1 G ap,Im lbousmd datlaws( y0, ).vy- y nth 'cimpaimwmrma and firm. I PROOF OF SERVICE 2 I am employed in the county of San Francisco,State of California. I am over 18 years of age and not a party to the 3 within entitled action.My business address is 807 Montgomery Street,San Francisco,California 94133, 4 On the date set forth below, I served the attached: GOVERNMENT CLAIM AGAINST CONTRA COSTA 5 COUNTY on the parties to said action by placing a true copy of each of the document(s) thereof in a sealed envelope 6 addressed as listed below: 7 Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Room 106 8 County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 9 Martinez, CA 94553 10 11 X (BY MAIL) I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the United States 12 Postal Service on that same day with first class postage thereon fully prepaid at San Francisco, California, in the ordinary course of business. 13 (OVERNIGHT MAIL) I deposited said addressed envelope(s) in a box or facility regularly 14 maintained by Federal Express,in an envelope or package designated by Federal Express with delivery fees paid or provided for. 15 (PERSONAL SERVICE)I delivered such addressed envelope(s),by hand,to the office of the 16 addressee(s). 17 (VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL) I caused such document(s)to be transmitted by facsimile on the parties to said action,confirmed receipt of the facsimile,and also placed a true 18 copy of each of the documents thereof in a sealed envelope addressed as listed above for mailing. I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing 19 correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the United States Postal Service on that same day with first class postage thereon fully prepaid at San Francisco, 20 California, in the ordinary course of business. 21 22 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 23 Executed at San Francisco,California on the following date. 24 DATED: June 30, 2004 25 Fay Fitzge ld 26 Paralegal PROOF OF SERVICE QED --- CLAIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD ACTION: AUGUST 03, 2004 Claim Against the County, or District Governed by ) the Board of Supervisors,Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your California Government Codes. ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors. (Paragraph IV below), given gh` f '11 Pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and � 4 915.4. Please note all"Warnings". 4 AMOUNT: UNKNOWN „ 22,01104 CLAIMANT: PATRIAL BONNER 1'' `� INy Y Z CALIn { ATTORNEY: ALLAN M. TABOR DATE RECEIVED: JULY 08, 2004 ADDRESS: RYAN & TABOR BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON:JULY 08, 2004 11 EMBARGADERO WEST, SUITE 130 OAKLAND, CA 94607-4543 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: JULY 07, 2004 FROM: 'Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. JOHN SWE T Jerk Dated: .JULY 08, 2004 By: Deputy II, MOM: County Counsel, TO: Clerk of the Beard of Supervisors (This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. t ( ) This Claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim(Section 911.3). ( } Other: Dated: "fes By: `' Deputy County Counse III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel(1) County Administrator(2) { ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant(Section 911.3). IV. ARD ORDER.: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present: (This Claim is rejected in full. { } Other' I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Dated - OHN SWEETEN, CLERK.,By , Deputy Clerk WARNING(Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six(6)months from the date this notice was personally served or depositel in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. *For Additional Warning See Reverse Side of This Notice. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the United States,over age 18; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California,postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the claimant as shown above. Dated: SWEETEN, CLERK.By Deputy Clerk , Allan M. Tabor, State Bar No 528 ` � 01 2 RYAN&TABOR JUL , ©04 11 Embarcadero West, Suite 130 rev s , 3 10 Oakland, California 94607-4543 r' L' "' � ��� 'lspq 4 Telephone(510)444-5350 Facsimile (510) 444-5359 5 6 Attorneys for Claimant PATRIAL BONNER 7 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA- LIMITED JURISDICTION 10 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 11 12 PATI2IAL BONNER, CLAIM FOR PERSONAL INJURIES 13 (Government Code Section 910) Claimant, 14 15 vs. 16 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, 17 Defendant. 18 19 Claimant, PATRIAL BONNER,presents the following claim against as follows: 20 a) Claimant lives at 1516 Sycamore Drive,#1, Antioch, California. 21 b) Notices are to be sent to Ryan&Tabor, 11 Embarcadero West,Suite 130, Oakland, 22 California 94607-4543. 23 24 ary c) On or about Janu2004 at 2.30 p.m., plaintiff fell on the property of the r 25 courthouse located in Martinez#6 '(kc "' ig'� �iK d-'i (--'v ( (' 26 d) Claimant suffered soft-tissue injuries. V� e, 27 e) Jurisdiction properly rests in the Superior Court,Limited Jurisdiction. RYAN&TABOR 28 AT TORNEYS AT LAW Y?EMSAROAOERO WEST, SUITE!30 '1 OAKLAND,GA 84807.4543 1 (540)444-5350 1 fj Names of public employees are unkno=wn. 2 3 4 mated: June 28, 2404 RYAN&TABOR s 6 � . 7 ALLAN M. TABOR Attorney for Claimant 8 PATRIAL BONNBR xr -VI 14 U 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27p RYAN&TABOR 28 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Y t EMBARCADERO WEST, SUITE 130 2 OAKLAND,CA 84867.4543 (510)444-5350 LAW OFFICES OF RYAN & TABOR THOMAS M.RYAN(1930-1977) PORTOBELLO OFFICES SANTA ROSA ALLAN M.TABOR 11 EMBARCADERO WEST, SUITE 130 - OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94607-4543 FACSIMILE: OF COUNSEL: 510-444-5350 510-444-5359 RONALD P.PEROTTI JUL 01 1 '7� , 2004 RC1= C�),t�, ?irn� June 28, 2004 R s RS CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED County of Contra Costa Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 RE: Pa r" 1 Bon=v. County of Con=CCo a Dear Gentlepersons: Enclosed please find an original and one copy of a Claim.for Personal.Injuries against the County of Contra Costa. Please file the original and return the conformed copy to this office in the envelope provided as soon as possible. Thank you. Yours truly, M. Tabor AMT/cll Encl.