Case 3:14-cv-00958-L Document 1 Filed 03/17/14

Page 1 of 18 PageID 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT . FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION GERARDO PINEDO, SR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF GERARDO PINEDO, JR Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS, JAMAL ROBINSON, AND MARK MELTABARGER

Civil Action No. _ _ _ _ __ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT COMES NOW Plaintiff, GERARDO PINEDO, SR., individually and on behalf of the ESTATE OF GERARDO PINEDO, JR., complaining of Defendants, THE CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS, more particularly the CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS POLICE DEPARTMENT, by and through its agents and servants acting jointly and severally in their official capacities and Officers JAMAL ROBINSON, and MARK MELTABARGER, individually and in their official capacities as Dallas Police Officers, and for cause would show the Honorable Court as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION I. This is an action brought by the Plaintiff against the City of Dallas, Texas, and Officers JAMAL ROBINSON and MARK MELTABARGER for their individual use of deadly force and assault resulting in the wrongful death of GERARDO PINEDO, JR under the color of law in violation of his individual rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and in violation of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 42 U.S.C. 1985(3). Furthermore, Plaintiff is entitled to recover individually and as representative for the ESTATE OF GERARDO PINEDO, JR. to the full extent applicable by law under the Texas

PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 1 of 18

PLED Pitf Ong Complaint

Case 3:14-cv-00958-L Document 1 Filed 03/17/14

Page 2 of 18 PageID 2

Wrongful Death Statute, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 71.001, et seq., the Texas Survival Statute, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 71.021, and all other applicable laws complaining of the various acts listed below and for their wrongful death and survival cause of action. 2. Plaintiff alleges that the CITY OF DALLAS had a duty, but failed to implement policies, practices and procedures that respected GERARDO PINEDO, JR.'s constitutional rights to assistance, protection, and equal treatment under the law. Defendant's failure to implement the necessary policies and the implementation of unconstitutional policies deprived GERARDO PINEDO, JR. of equal protection and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and caused his unwarranted and excruciating physical and mental anguish and death. For these civil rights violations, and other causes of action discussed herein, Plaintiff seeks answers and compensation for his damages and the death of GERARDO PINEDO, JR .. PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, GERARDO PINEDO, SR. is the father of GERARDO PINEDO, JR., decedent, and brings this wrongful death action pursuant to the Texas Survival Statute, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 71.021, and as the parent of GERARDO PINEDO, JR. who, at the time of his death, was a resident of Dallas County, Texas. 4. Defendant, the CITY OF DALLAS, is a municipality located in Dallas County, Texas. The CITY OF DALLAS operates the Dallas Police Department ("DPD"). The CITY OF DALLAS may be served with citation herein by and through its agent for service of process, Warren Ernst, City Attorney, Dallas City Hall, 1500 Marilla Street, Dallas, Texas 75201. Additional service is being made on Mayor Mike Rawlings, 1500 Marilla Street, Room SEN, Dallas, Texas 75201.

PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 2 of 18

PLED Pltf Orig Complaint

Case 3:14-cv-00958-L Document 1 Filed 03/17/14

Page 3 of 18 PageID 3

5. Defendant JAMAL ROBINSON, upon information and belief, is a resident of Dallas County, Texas, and at all times material herein was a police officer acting in the course and scope of his employment for the CITY OF DALLAS and DPD. Defendant JAMAL ROBINSON may be served with citation at the Dallas Police Department, 1400 S. Lamar, Dallas, Texas 75215 or wherever he may be found. 6. Defendant MARK. MELTABARGER, upon information and belief, is a resident of Dallas County, Texas, and at all times material herein was a police officer acting in the course and scope of his employment for the CITY OF DALLAS and DPD. Defendant MARK. MELTABARGER may be served with citation at the Dallas Police Department, 1400 S. Lamar, Dallas, Texas 75215 or wherever he may be found. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. Jurisdiction exists in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343 as this action is brought under, inter alia, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 42 U.S.C. 1985(3), to redress the deprivation of rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed to decedent, GERARDO PINEDO, JR., by constitutional and statutory provisions. Plaintiff further invokes the supplemental jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367 to adjudicate pendent claims arising under the laws of the State of Texas. 8. Venue is proper in this Court because events made the basis of Plaintiffs' causes of action occurred within the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.

PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 3 of 18

PLED Pltf Orig Complaint

Case 3:14-cv-00958-L Document 1 Filed 03/17/14

Page 4 of 18 PageID 4

STATE ACTION 9. To the extent applicable, Defendants were acting under color of state law when they subjected GERARDO PINEDO, JR. to the wrongs and injuries hereinafter set forth. FACTS 10. On or about July 17, 2013, GERARDO PINEDO, JR., a 19 year old unarmed Hispanic male, upon information and belief, was confronted by Dallas Police Officers identified as JAMAL ROBINSON and MARK MELTABARGER for no lawful reason while GERARDO PINEDO, JR. was lawfully within a home located at 1639 Conner Dr., Dallas, Texas 75217 (the "Home"). GERARDO PINEDO, JR. had been with friends in the area close to the Home earlier that evening. After leaving his friends, GERARDO PINEDO, JR. returned to the Home. 11. At or around 10:00 pm, somebody called 911, and upon the arrival of Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABARGER, a neighbor informed Defendants that the neighbor had heard noises coming from the Home and believed an intruder was inside. 12. Upon information and belief, a gunshot was heard at or around 10:00 pm. Shortly thereafter, GERARDO PINEDO, JR. was seen lying on the ground in the backyard of the Home, writhing and moaning in pain, with one of the Defendants standing over GERARDO PINEDO, JR. shining a flashlight on him. Further, while GERARDO PINEDO, JR. was writhing and moaning in pain on the ground, one of the Defendants proceeded to prod GERARDO PINEDO, JR. with a black object. In addition to prodding GERARDO PINEDO, JR. while he was on the ground, one of the Defendants was also seen grabbing and dragging GERARDO PINEDO, JR.'s body. 13. There was no indication that GERARDO PINEDO, JR. was armed with a weapon at the time of the occurrence of the events made the basis ofthis lawsuit.

PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 4 of 18

PLED Pltf Orig Complaint

Case 3:14-cv-00958-L Document 1 Filed 03/17/14

Page 5 of 18 PageID 5

14. Upon infonnation and belief, it was not until approximately 20 to 30 minutes after the gunshot that emergency medical personnel arrived and took GERARDO PINEDO, JR. away. 15. The Dallas Medical Examiner determined that GERARDO PINEDO, JR. had one gunshot wound to his hand, another gunshot wound to his chest, and two punctate abrasions on
his back consistent with Taser injuries.

16. As indicated above, Defendants

ROBINSON and

MELTABARGER attacked

GERARDO PINEDO, JR., using excessive and deadly force for no lawful reasons. During this time, either Defendant ROBINSON or Defendant MELTABARGER tased GERARDO PINEDO, JR. in the back, and the other continued the assault upon 19 year old GERARDO PINEDO, JR. by delivering at least one fatal gunshot wound to the chest. 17. There is no evidence that Defendants were in imminent danger. Upon infonnation and belief, there were no signs of any visible injuries or bruising to either Defendant ROBINSON or Defendant MELTABARGER'S bodies that would indicate that the use of deadly force was justified. 18. Drawing or displaying firearms requires that a threat or reasonable belief that there is a threat to life or they have reasonable fear for their own safety and/or the safety of others, exist in order to authorize an officer to draw or display herlhis firearm. 19. A taser is an intennediate weapon, and is only justified for situations when the officer believes empty hand control will be ineffective. Empty hand control techniques include joint locks, pressure points, Oleoresin Capsicum Spray, hand held aerosols, and pepper ball saturation, none of which occurred before the drawing of Defendants' weapons. 20. Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER's unlawful and unwarranted acts caused GERARDO PINEDO, JR.'s wrongful death.

PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 5 of 18

PLED PltfOrig Complaint

Case 3:14-cv-00958-L Document 1 Filed 03/17/14

Page 6 of 18 PageID 6

21. Plaintiff would show that at all times material hereto, Defendants ROBINSON and METLABERGER were acting within the scope of their employment as agents, servants, and employees of Defendant the CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS within its executive branch and were performing a governmental function. 22. Plaintiff would further show that Defendants ROBINSON and l\1ELTABERGER's actions were the result of, or within the scope of, wrongful and reckless customs, policies, practices and/or procedures for which the CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS knew or should have known but never provided the requisite and proper training. 23. GERARDO PINEDO, JR. was nineteen (19) years old when he was killed by Defendants. 24. Moreover, no reasonably competent official would have concluded that the actions of the Defendants described herein would not violate GERARDO PINEDO, JR.'s rights. In other words, no reasonably prudent police officer under similar circumstances, could have believed that their conduct was justified. 25. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff has sustained substantial damages and pecuniary loss. EXCESSIVE FORCE COUNT A: 42 U.S.C. 1983 26. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs I through 25 as if fully set forth herein. Plaintiff would further show that Defendants' actions on the occasion in question were wrongful and constituted gross negligence in depriving GERARDO PINEDO, JR. of his constitutional rights, as alleged more fully below. 27. Plaintiff would show that at all times material hereto, Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER had a duty to avoid infliction of unjustified bodily injury to GERARDO
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 6 of 18
PLED Pltf Qrig Complaint

Case 3:14-cv-00958-L Document 1 Filed 03/17/14

Page 7 of 18 PageID 7

PINEDO, JR., to protect GERARDO PINEDO, JR.'s bodily integrity and to not trample on GERARDO PINEDO, JR.'s constitutional rights. 28. Plaintiff would further show that Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER failed to act as reasonable police officers would have acted in the same or similar circumstances. That is, DefendantsROBINSON and MELTABERGER, without justification and the need to do so, tased, disabled, shot and used excessive and deadly force as described above, and killed GERARDO PINEDO, JR. without probable cause. 29. Plaintiff would further show that Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER tased and shot GERARDO PINEDO, JR. in his own backyard causing punctate abrasions to GERARDO PINEDO, JR.'s body. Defendants utilized deadly force in attacking GERARDO PINEDO, JR. for no lawful reason. GERARDO PINEDO, JR. died as a result of the gunshot wound to his chest fired by either Defendant ROBINSON or MELTABERGER. The excessive and deadly force used by Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER was not reasonable nor was it necessary under the circumstances. 30. Defendants ROBINSON and MEL TABERGER's actions were not objectively reasonable because they failed to follow reasonable procedures and used excessive force and deadly force in restraining GERARDO PINEDO, JR. in a non-life threatening situation. GERARDO PINEDO, JR. was tased and suffered two gunshot wounds while he was subdued. 31. Plaintiff would show that Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER denied GERARDO PINEDO, JR. his right to be free from cruel, unusual and excessive punishment, and to be free from deprivation of his rights without due process of law, in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution as incorporated to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff would show that Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER were

PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 7 of 18

PLED Pltf Orig Complaint

Case 3:14-cv-00958-L Document 1 Filed 03/17/14

Page 8 of 18 PageID 8

acting within custom, policy, practice and/or procedure of the CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS at the time of the incident. Plaintiff would further show that as a result of these violations of GERARDO PINEDO, JR.'s rights, Plaintiff have suffered damages within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. 32. The force used by Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER was unnecessary and unreasonable under the circumstances, as GERARDO PINEDO, JR. did not require the use of such excessive and deadly force. Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER had no probable cause to suspect that a crime was being committed or that their conduct was reasonable so as to justify Defendants ROBINSON and MEL TABERGER tasing GERARDO PINEDO, JR. in the back, shooting him in the hand and chest, prodding him while he was on the ground writhing in pain, and dragging his body while he was on the ground. RACIAL PROFILING COUNT B: CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION 33. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-32 as iffully set forth herein. 34. Racial Profiling: Plaintiff would show that Defendants ROBINSON and

MELTABERGER clearly and wrongfully used race as a factor, a proxy, for reasonable suspicion and using excessive force on GERARDO PINEDO, JR .. Additionally, Plaintiff would show that it is the policy of the Dallas Police Department to treat Hispanics in a cruel manner regardless of the circumstances or the need to. The facts show that there was no probable cause for GERARDO PINEDO, JR.'s arrest and that no citations were ever issued. In fact, Plaintiff would show that the excessive force used by Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER was not reasonable nor was it necessary as GERARDO PINEDO, JR. was lawfully in the Home. Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER treated GERARDO PINEDO, JR. in the manner they did because he was Hispanic. Plaintiff would show that Defendants ROBINSON and
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 8 of 18
PLED Pltf Orig Complaint

Case 3:14-cv-00958-L Document 1 Filed 03/17/14

Page 9 of 18 PageID 9

MELTABERGER's actions were in violation of TEX. CODE CRIM PROC. ANN. Art. 2.131137 (Vernon Supp. 2004) and are therefore strictly liable to Plaintiff. 35. Plaintiff would further show that Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER denied GERARDO PINEDO, JR. his rights to be free from cruel, unusual and excessive punishment, right 01 equal protection, and deprived him of due process of law, in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution as incorporated to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendants ROBINSON and MEL TABERGER, under the color of law, deprived GERARDO PINEDO, JR. of his civil rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 42 U.S.C. 1985 (3). 36. Plaintiff would show that Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER were acting within established wrongful and reckless customs, policies, practices and/or procedures of the CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS at the time of the incident, and further that the Defendant the CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS knew or should have known of said malicious customs, policies, practices and/or procedures for which the CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS knew or should have known but never provided the requisite and proper training. 37. Plaintiff would further show that as a result of these violations of GERARDO PINEDO,
JR.' s rights, Plaintiff has suffered damages within the jurisdictional limits of this Court.

FAILURE TO TRAIN COUNT C: 42 U.S.C. 1983 38. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-37 as if fully set forth herein. 39. Defendant the CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS developed and maintained a policy of deficient training of its police force in the use of force, including the use of deadly force in the apprehension of individuals. The CITY OF DALLAS' failure to provide adequate training to its police officers regarding the use of deadly force reflects deliberate indifference and reckless and
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 9 of 18
PLED PltfOrig Complaint

Case 3:14-cv-00958-L Document 1 Filed 03/17/14

Page 10 of 18 PageID 10

conscious disregard for the obvious risk that officers would use excessive or deadly force on citizens and made the violations of GERARDO PINEDO, JR.'s constitutional rights, including his death, a reasonable probability. 40. Plaintiff would show that Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER's actions were the result of, or within the scope of, wrongful and reckless customs, policies, practices and/or procedures for which the CITY OF DALLAS knew or should have known but never provided the requisite and proper training. FALSE ARREST COUNT D: 42 U.S.C. 1983 41. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-40 as if fully set forth herein. 42. Additionally, and in the alternative, Plaintiff would show that Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER's actions were objectively uureasonable and done in bad faith in that Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER attempted to arrest GERARDO PINEDO, JR. without probable cause. GERARDO PINEDO, JR. did not commit a crime by being in the Home. 43. Plaintiff would further show that they have suffered damages within the jurisdictional limits of this Court as a result of the wrongful arrest and that such arrest was done under color of law. 44. Plaintiff would show that Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER were acting within the custom, policy, practice and/or procedure of the CITY OF DALLAS at the time of the incident. 45. Plaintiff would additionally show that such wrongful arrest was done in violation of GERARDO PINEDO, JR.'s rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, as incorporated to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, and that Plaintiff has
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 10 of 18
PLED Pltf Orig Complaint

Case 3:14-cv-00958-L Document 1 Filed 03/17/14

Page 11 of 18 PageID 11

suffered damages within the jurisdictional limits of this Court as a result of the violations of GERARDO PINEDO, JR.'s rights. 46. Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER were acting under the color oflaw when they deprived GERARDO PINEDO, JR. of his constitutional right to be free from false arrest. 47. Additionally and in the alternative, Plaintiff would show that Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER's actions were objectively unreasonable and done in bad faith because Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER were without probable cause to think that GERARDO PINEDO, JR. was unlawfully in the Home. 48. Plaintiff would further show that they have suffered damages within the jurisdictional limits of this Court from the wrongful shooting of GERARDO PINEDO, JR., and said shooting was under the color of law. 49. Plaintiff would show that Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER were acting within the custom, policy, practice and/or procedure of the CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS at the time of the incident. 50. Plaintiff would additionally show that such wrongful shooting was done in violation of GERARDO PINEDO, JR.'s rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, as incorporated to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, and that Plaintiffs have suffered damages within the jurisdictional limits of this Court as a result of these violations. ASSAULT AND BATTERY COUNTE 51. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-50 as iffully set forth herein. 52. Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER intentionally and without consent placed GERARDO PINEDO, JR. in apprehension of imminent harmful contact and caused harful bodily contact to GERARDO PINEDO, JR..
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Poge 11 of 18
PLED Pltf Drig Complaint

Case 3:14-cv-00958-L Document 1 Filed 03/17/14

Page 12 of 18 PageID 12

53. As a proximate result of the foregoing, GERARDO PINEDO, JR. suffered grievous bodily harm, substantial physical and emotional pain, and loss of his life.
NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO TRAIN AND DISCIPLINE COUNTF

54. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-53 as if fully set forth herein. 55. Additionally and in the alternative, Plaintiff would show that at all times material hereto, Defendant the CITY OF DALLAS's Police Department lacked guidelines both to restrict the use of force, including the use of tasers, and to monitor the use of tasers, or, if such guidelines existed, they were grossly inadequate to ensure the proper and restrained use of force including tasers by police personnel. 56. Plaintiff would show that Defendant the CITY OF DALLAS endorsed the unfettered use of deadly force, including a taser, even in situations where no crime was committed. Plaintiff would show that Defendant the CITY OF DALLAS' failure to properly train, supervise, test, regulate, discipline or otherwise control its employees and the failure to promulgate proper guidelines for the use of force including fire arms and tasers constitutes a custom, policy, practice andlor procedure of condoning unjustified use of deadly force in violation of the constitutional rights of GERARDO PINEDO, JR.. 57. As a result of this failure to train and discipline, Plaintiff has suffered damages within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. As described above, Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER shot GERARDO PINEDO, JR. with a taser in the back and used deadly force when it was unnecessary.

PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 12 of 18 PLED Pltf Orig Complaint

Case 3:14-cv-00958-L Document 1 Filed 03/17/14

Page 13 of 18 PageID 13

INTENTIONAL AND NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS COUNTG 58. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-57 as if fully set forth herein. 59. Plaintiff would further show that if Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER were acting in their individual capacity, the they committed the following intentional torts against GERARDO PINEDO, JR.: a. Assault and Battery; and b. False Imprisonment. 60. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER, Plaintiff suffered pain and suffering, mental anguish, and severe emotional distress, loss of support and companionship damages within the jurisdictional limits of this
Court.

61. Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER's conduct was of a willful, malicious, reckless and outrageous nature, and was intended to cause, and did in fact cause GERARDO PINEDO, JR. to suffer extreme and severe mental and emotional distress, agony and anxiety. Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER's conduct offends the generally accepted standards of decency and morality. GROSS NEGLIGENCE COUNTH 62. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-61 as if fully set forth herein. 63. Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER had a duty to employ only reasonable measures in the treatment of the decedent.

PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 13 of 18

PLED PUf Orig Complaint

Case 3:14-cv-00958-L Document 1 Filed 03/17/14

Page 14 of 18 PageID 14

64. Notwithstanding said duties, Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER acted in a wanton and willful manner, exhibiting such carelessness and recklessness as to evidence a conscious disregard for the life and safety of GERARDO PINEDO, JR.. 65. Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER were aware that they were not facing any imminent or serious threat of bodily harm, and they knew or should have known that they had no right to use any force whatsoever with respect to GERARDO PINEDO, JR., who was merely lawfully present inside the Home owned by his father. Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER nonetheless illegally apprehended GERARDO PINEDO, JR. through the use of deadly force by shooting him in the chest and tasing him in the back. 66. Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER knew or should have known that their course of action of drawing a lethal weapon and firing it at GERARDO PINEDO, JR. would place GERARDO PINEDO, JR. in grave danger of serious injury. 67. As a direct and proximate cause of the gross negligence of Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER, Plaintiff has suffered damages. TEXAS SURVIVAL ACTION COUNT I 68. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-67 as if fully set forth herein. 69. Pursuant to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 71.021, the decedent's right of action for wrongful and negligent conduct against Defendants survives in favor of his heirs, legal representatives, and the estate of the deceased. 70. Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for the loss of GERARDO PINEDO, JR. 's life, pain and suffering, and the violation of his civil rights.

PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 14 of 18

PLED PUf Orig Complaint

Case 3:14-cv-00958-L Document 1 Filed 03/17/14

Page 15 of 18 PageID 15

TEXAS WRONGFUL DEATH ACT COUNTJ

71. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-70 as if fully set forth herein. 72. Plaintiff GERARDO PINEDO, SR. is the legal administrator for the estate of GERARDO PINEDO, JR. 73. GERARDO PINEDO, JR. died as a result of Defendants' wrongful conduct. 74. GERARDO PINEDO, JR. would have been entitle to bring this action against Defendants if he had lived. 75. By reason of Defendants' wrongful conduct of shooting to death an unarmed individual without the imminent threat of serious bodily harm, Defendants are liable for damages. 76. Defendants' conduct that caused GERARDO PINEDO, JR.'s death was a producing cause of injury to GERARDO PINEDO, JR., which resulted in damages including loss of a family relationship, love, support, services, emotional pain and suffering, and for Defendants' intentional and reckless acts and infliction of emotional distress caused by the wrongful killing of GERARDO PINEDO, JR. 77. Plaintiff seeks unliquidated damages within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. 78. GERARDO PINEDO, JR.'s death resulted from Defendants' willful act or omission, or from Defendants' gross negligence, which entitles GERARDO PINEDO, JR.'s heirs to exemplary damages under the Texas Constitution article 16, section 26.
DAMAGES ALL DEFENDANTS

79. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-78 as if fully set forth herein. 80. Plaintiff would further show that Defendants' acts and/or omissions were a proximate cause of the following injuries suffered by Plaintiff and decedent: a. Actual damages;
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 15 of 18
PLED Pltf Orig Complaint

Case 3:14-cv-00958-L Document 1 Filed 03/17/14

Page 16 of 18 PageID 16

b. Loss of affection, consortium, comfort, financial assistance, protection, affection and care; c. Pain and suffering and mental anguish suffered by GERARDO PINEDO, JR., JR. prior to his death; d. Mental anguish and emotional distress suffered by Plaintiff; e. Loss of quality oflife; f. Funeral and burial expenses;

g. Loss of service; h. Loss of earnings and contributions to Plaintiff;

i.
J.

Exemplary and punitive damages; Reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of court;

k. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988, and other applicable laws, Plaintiff should be

awarded reasonable attorney's fees for the preparation and trial of this cause of action, and for its appeal, if required;

1.

Pre-judgment interest; and

m. Post-judgment interest. 81. Plaintiff seeks unliquidated damages in an amount that is within the jurisdictional limits of this Court.
PUNITIVEIEXEMPLARY DAMAGES

82. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-81 as iffully set forth herein. 83. Additionally and in the alternative, the conduct of Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER was done with malice. As such, Plaintiff requests punitive and exemplary damages to deter this type of conduct in the future. 84. In the alternative, such heedless and reckless disregard of GERARDO PINEDO, JR.'s rights, safety, and welfare is more than momentary thoughtlessness, inadvertence, or misjudgment. Such unconscionable conduct goes beyond ordinary negligence, and as such,

PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 16 of 18

PLED Pltf Orig Complaint

Case 3:14-cv-00958-L Document 1 Filed 03/17/14

Page 17 of 18 PageID 17

Plaintiff requests punitive and exemplary damages be awarded against Defendants ROBINSON and MELTABERGER in a sum which is within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES 85. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-84 as if fully set forth herein. 86. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. 1988(b). 87. As such, Plaintiff requests that the Court award Plaintiff his costs and attorney fees incurred in Plaintiff's prosecution ofthis matter. JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY 88. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-87 as if fully set forth herein. 89. Plaintiff would show that Defendants were jointly and severally liable for the negligence and gross negligence, which was the proximate cause of Plaintiff s injuries. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT 90. Plaintiff reserves his right to plead and prove the damages to which they are entitled to at the time of trial. All conditions to Plaintiff s recovery have been performed or have occurred. JURY DEMAND 91. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury. PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that Defendants be cited to appear and answer herein, and that upon final trial hereof Plaintiff have and recover judgment from Defendants for: a. Actual damages; b. Exemplary and punitive damages; c. Pre-judgment interest; d. Post-judgment interest;
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 17 of 18
PLED PHf Orig Complaint

Case 3:14-cv-00958-L Document 1 Filed 03/17/14

Page 18 of 18 PageID 18

e. Interest on said Judgment; and f. Reasonable attorney's fees and costs of court.

Additionally, Plaintiff prays that the Court grant Plaintiff any other and further relief to which he may be entitled, both at law and in equity.

Respectfully submitted,

c:-;>

EVAN LANE (VAN) SHAW Bar Card No. 18140500 COLLEN R. MEYER Bar Card No. 24074709 LAW OFFICES OF V AN SHAW 2723 Fairmount Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 754-7110 FAX NO. (214) 754-7115 van@shawlaw.net collen@shawlaw.net ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - Page 18 of 18

PLED Pitf Orig Complaint