Complaint (Filed Copy)

Case 2:09-cv-01264-ECV Document 1 Filed 06/11/2009 Page 1 of 12
1 Lorona, Steiner,
Ducar & Horowitz, Ltd.
2 3003 North Central Avenue, Suite 1800
Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2909
3 Telephone: (602) 277-3000
Facsimile: (602) 277-7478
4
Jess A. Lorona, #009186
5 Gregory E. McClure, #022587
Attorneys for Plaintiff
6
7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Glen R. Scotti, an individual, Case No. CV09-1264-PHX
9
10 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT
3003 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE, SUITE 1800
11 vs.
DUCAR & HOROWITZ, LTD.
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3909

LORONA, STEINER,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
12 City of Phoenix, a political subdivision

(602) 277-3000
of the State of Arizona; City of Phoenix

13 Police Department, an Arizona law
14 enforcement agency; Jack Harris and
Jane Doe Harris, husband and wife;
15 Mary Freund and John Doe Freund,
husband and wife; Christina Gonzalez
16 and John Doe Gonzalez, husband and
wife; David Sampson and Jane Doe
17 Sampson, husband and wife; Sandra
18 Renteria and John Doe Renteria,
husband and wife.
19
Defendants.
20
Plaintiff, Glen R. Scotti, by and through his counsel undersigned, hereby
21
22 alleges as follows for his Complaint against Defendants:
23 PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

24 1. Plaintiff, Glen R. Scotti (“Mr. Scotti”), is, at all times relevant, a resident
25
of Maricopa County, Arizona.
1
1 2. Defendant, City of Phoenix, is, at all times relevant, a political
2 subdivision of the State of Arizona, located in Maricopa County, Arizona.

3
3. Defendant City of Phoenix Police Department is at all times relevant to
4
this Complaint, an Arizona law enforcement agency, located in Maricopa County,
5
Arizona.
6
4. Defendants, Jack Harris (“Chief Harris”) and Jane Doe Harris, are, at all
7
8 times relevant, husband and wife residing in Maricopa County, Arizona. Defendant
9 Jack Harris holds the position of Chief of Police in and for the City of Phoenix. All
10 actions taken by Defendant Jack Harris were on behalf of the marital community.
11
5. Defendants, Mary Freund (“Detective Freund”) and John Doe Freund,

LORONA, STEINER,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
12
are, at all times relevant, husband and wife residing in Maricopa County, Arizona. At
(602) 277-3000
13
all times relevant, Defendant Mary Freund held the position of detective in and for the
14
15 City of Phoenix Police Department in the Family Investigations Bureau. All actions
16 taken by Defendant Mary Freund were on behalf of the marital community.
17 6. Defendants, Christina Gonzalez (“Lieutenant Gonzalez”) and John Doe

18 Gonzalez, are, at all times relevant, husband and wife residing in Maricopa County,
19
Arizona. At all times relevant, Defendant Christina Gonzalez held the position of
20
Detective in and for the City of Phoenix Police Department in the Family
21
Investigations Bureau. Upon information and belief, Defendant Christina Gonzalez
22
23 has since been promoted to Lieutenant. All actions taken by Defendant Christina
24 Gonzalez were on behalf of the marital community.
25
2
1 7. Defendants, David Sampson (“Detective Sampson”) and Jane Doe
2 Sampson, are, at all times relevant, husband and wife residing in Maricopa County,
3
Arizona. At all times relevant, Defendant David Sampson held the position of
4
Detective in and for the City of Phoenix Police Department in the Family
5
Investigations Bureau. All actions taken by Defendant David Sampson were on behalf
6
of the marital community.
7
8 8. Defendants, Sandra Renteria (“Commander Renteria”) and John Doe
9 Renteria, are, at all times relevant, husband and wife residing in Maricopa County,
10 Arizona. At all times relevant, Defendant Sandra Renteria held the position of
11
Lieutenant in and for the City of Phoenix Police Department in the Family
LORONA, STEINER,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
12
Investigations Bureau. Upon information and belief, Defendant Sandra Renteria has
(602) 277-3000
13
since been promoted to Commander. All actions taken by Defendant Sandra Renteria
14
15 were on behalf of the marital community.
16 9. Subject matter jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
17 10. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, venue is proper in this Court.

18 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
19
11. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation set forth above as if fully
20
set forth herein.
21
12. On or about May 29, 2007, at approximately 6:57 a.m., nearly a dozen
22
23 Phoenix Police Officers stormed the home of Plaintiff. Plaintiff is a former law
24 enforcement officer with no prior history of criminal activity. Officers used a
25
3
1 battering ram to break down the front door and exerted excessive and unreasonable
2 force on the person of Plaintiff.

3
13. The search warrant executed on the morning of May 29, 2007 was
4
willfully and intentionally procured through the use of false and fabricated evidence
5
by Defendants Freund and Gonzalez.
6
14. Defendant Freund had befriended an alleged victim in a domestic
7
8 violence investigation named Kimberly Lewis (“Lewis”). Defendant Freund first met
9 Lewis in approximately March of 2002. At that time, Lewis was embroiled in a

10 divorce proceeding with her former husband Andrew Rehkow (“Rehkow”). Upon
11
information and belief, throughout the course of the dissolution proceedings, Lewis
LORONA, STEINER,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
12
made a multitude of false accusations of alleged criminal activity by Rehkow. These
(602) 277-3000
13
accusations led to an ongoing criminal investigation against Rehkow that began in
14
15 March of 2002 and continued for a number of years. Throughout that time period,
16 Defendant Freund remained the lead investigator for the Rehkow investigation.
17 15. From March of 2002 through June of 2007, Defendant Freund served as
18 a personal confidant and friend to Lewis while purportedly investigating Rehkow for
19
criminal violations. Upon information and belief, Defendant Freund became
20
personally and emotionally involved in with Lewis. Defendant Freund’s
21
granddaughter began taking classes at Lewis’ dance studio, purchased a one page ad
22
23 for her granddaughter in a dance recital brochure that Lewis produced and worked
24 hand in hand with Lewis’ attorney in the family court case to procure testimony from
25 a psychologist claiming that Rehkow was mentally ill and could kill at any time.
4
1 16. Defendant Freund’s dealings with Lewis went well beyond the scope of
2 her duties as a City of Phoenix Police Officer.

3
17. Additionally, Defendant Freund intentionally and willfully circumvented
4
City of Phoenix policies regarding the recording of conversations with alleged
5
domestic violence victims. Further, Defendant Gonzalez also failed to record
6
conversations with Lewis.
7
8 18. Sometime prior to May 29, 2007, Rehkow hired Plaintiff to perform
9 private investigative work.

10 19. Part of that investigative work included some investigation into Lewis
11
regarding the family court proceeding.

LORONA, STEINER,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
12
20. Defendant Freund, for some unknown reason, believed that Plaintiff’s
(602) 277-3000
13
involvement was criminal. Defendant Freund accused Plaintiff of being an accessory
14
15 in fact to aggravated harassment of Lewis committed by Rehkow.
16 21. In an On or about June 12, 2007, the 420th Grand Jury in Maricopa
17 County, Arizona, handed down an indictment charging Plantiff with one count of
18 Stalking, a class 3 felony. The State alleged that between the dates of December 18,
19
2006 and May 30, 3007, Plaintiff acted as an accomplice to Rehkow and engaged in a
20
course of conduct which caused Lewis to fear her own death or the death of an
21
immediate family member.
22
23 22. At the time that the events allegedly occurred, Plaintiff was gainfully
24 employed as licensed private investigator after having retired from his position as an
25 Adult Probation Officer with the Maricopa County Adult Probation Department.
5
1 23. Although the State alleged that Plaintiff assisted Rehkow in harassing
2 Lewis, Rehkow’s charges stemmed from events alleged to have occurred over four (4)
3
years before Plaintiff started working for Rehkow.
4
24. To secure the grand jury indictment against Plaintiff, Detective Sampson
5
appeared and testified before the grand jury. Detective Sampson testified consistently
6
with the reports prepared and submitted by Defendant Freund.
7
8 25. During the course of the criminal proceedings it was determined that the
9 summaries and statements included in the reports prepared by Defendant Freund were
10 factually inaccurate and contained false and fraudulent statements and evidence.
11
26. Additionally, Defendant Freund’s reports intentionally omitted

LORONA, STEINER,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
12
exculpatory evidence.
(602) 277-3000
13
27. Upon information and belief, Defendant Freund’s supervisors, as each
14
15 named as Defendants herein, were aware of her actions and helped perpetuate the
16 introduction of false evidence and the malicious prosecution of Plaintiff.
17 28. In a Minute Entry dated August, 5, 2008, the trial court issued a ruling
18 that as a matter of fact and law that the facts as presented to the grand Jury were false
19
and were not sufficient to establish probable cause. The State agreed with the Court
20
as it did not seek to obtain a second indictment or other probable cause determination
21
against Plaintiff.
22
23 29. On or about December 18, 2008, the charges against Plaintiff were
24 dismissed with prejudice.
25 30. Plaintiff requests a jury trial in this matter.
6
1 COUNT ONE
VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983-MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
2
31. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation above as it fully set
3
4 forth herein.
5 32. The Defendants are individuals, entities and municipalities acting under
6 color of state law.
7
33. The Defendants, individually and collectively, contributed to the
8
presentation of false and fraudulent evidence and testimony to the Maricopa County
9
Grand Jury, on or about June 12, 2007.
10
11 34. The presentation of said evidence led to the issuance of a Grand Jury

LORONA, STEINER,
Indictment against Mr. Scotti.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
12
(602) 277-3000
13 35. By participating in the investigation and presentation of false evidence

14 to the Grand Jury, the Defendants deprived Mr. Scotti of his substantive due process
15
rights to a fair and impartial presentation of evidence for determination of probable
16
cause and violations of Plaintiffs First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
17
36. In doing so, the Defendants participated and assisted in the prosecution
18
19 of Mr. Scotti with malice and without probable cause and in doing so deprived Mr.
20 Scotti of his constitutional rights.
21 37. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Mr. Scotti incurred financial,

22
economic, emotional and other damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
23
38. The actions of the Defendants were entered into with an evil mind and
24
therefore, punitive damages are appropriate.
25
7
1 COUNT TWO
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
2
39. The Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation set forth above as if
3
4 more fully set forth herein.
5 40. The Defendants, by conduct, participation or knowledge, initiated or

6 help institute a criminal prosecution against Mr. Scotti.
7
41. The criminal prosecution terminated in Mr. Scotti’s favor when the
8
Court decided as a matter of fact and law that the facts as presented were not sufficient
9
to establish probable cause. Obviously, the State agreed with the Court as it did not
10
11 seek to obtain an indictment or other probable cause determination against Mr. Scotti.

LORONA, STEINER,
42. On or about December 18, 2008, the charges against Mr. Scotti were
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
12
(602) 277-3000
13 dismissed with prejudice.

14 43. Each of the Defendants contributed to the investigation and prosecution
15
of Mr. Scotti in some way.
16
44. Each and every Defendant’s actions were with malice and lacked
17
probable cause.
18
19 45. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Mr. Scotti suffered significant
20 financial, emotional, and personal injuries.
21 COUNT THREE
GROSS NEGLIGENCE
22
23 46. The plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation set forth above as
24 more fully set forth herein.
25
8
1 47. The Defendants, as entities and individuals charged with enforcement of
2 the laws and investigations of criminal acts, owed a duty to Mr. Scotti to conduct their
3
investigation into allegations of stalking committed by Mr. Scotti pursuant to the
4
applicable standard of care for law enforcement officers.
5
48. Defendants conduct deviated from the duty and standard of care required
6
of police officers by relying on false or fraudulent information to secure a grand jury
7
8 indictment against Mr. Scotti and the subsequent use of that information as a basis for
9 criminal prosecution of Mr. Scotti.

10 49. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Mr. Scotti has been incurred
11
damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

LORONA, STEINER,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
12
COUNT FOUR
(602) 277-3000
13 INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

14 50. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation set forth above as if fully
15
set forth herein.
16
51. Defendants intentional use of false and fraudulent evidence and
17
testimony to obtain a Grand Jury Indictment against Mr. Scotti rises to the level of
18
19 “extreme and outrageous” conduct as to warrant recovery on the basis of intentional
20 infliction of emotional distress.
21 52. Defendants knew or had reason to know that the evidence presented to
22
the grand jury was fraudulent yet, despite this fact, they intentionally and recklessly
23
used the false evidence to obtain a Grand Jury Indictment.
24
25
9
1 53. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants actions, Mr. Scotti
2 suffered severe emotional distress.

3
COUNT FIVE
4 NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
6 set forth herein.
7
55. Defendants collection and use of false and fraudulent evidence and
8
testimony to obtain a Grand Jury Indictment against Mr. Scotti subjected Mr. Scotti to
9
an unreasonable risk of harm.
10
11 56. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Mr. Scotti


LORONA, STEINER,
suffered severe emotional and physical distress. Further, Mr. Scotti continues to
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
12
(602) 277-3000
13 experience mental pain and suffering.

14 COUNT SIX
15 DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER
17 set forth herein.

18 58. Defendants published and rendered various written statements
19
concerning Mr. Scotti, his propensity to commit a stalking offense, veracity and
20
professional and personal character.
21
59. Material defamatory of the personal, professional, business reputation
22
23 and capabilities of Mr. Scotti was and is contained in the police report and grand jury
24 testimony. Such statements were contrary to the truth and contrary to the information
25
10
1 available to Defendants prior to submitting and publishing the police report and
2 testimony before the grand jury.

3
60. The false, defamatory, and misleading statements made by and on behalf
4
of Defendants concerning the reputation and personal character of Mr. Scotti, were
5
made maliciously and with intent to injure and damage Mr. Scotti. The statements
6
concerning Mr. Scotti are wholly false and were not protected expressions of opinion.
7
8 61. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, Mr. Scotti
9 has been hampered in his pursuit of employment and has been and will be
10 permanently and irretrievably damaged in his professional career. Mr. Scotti has
11
suffered and will continue to suffer a permanent impairment of his capacity to earn a
LORONA, STEINER,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
12
living. In the future, Mr. Scotti will be barred and prevented from securing
(602) 277-3000
13
comparable employment and therefore, will sustain a loss of future income in amounts
14
15 that cannot presently be determined. Such full amount will be determined at trial.
16 62. As a further direct and proximate result of the conduct by Defendants,
17 including publication of false, misleading, and defamatory statements, Mr. Scotti has
18 suffered and in the future will continue to suffer serious and irreparable personal
19
inconvenience, mental anguish and distress. Such full amount will be determined at
20
trial.
21
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for Judgment against Defendants, and each of
22
23 them, as follows:
24 A. For compensatory damages, plus special and incidental damages in such
25 a sum as may be proven at trial;
11
1 B. For punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial;
2 C. For costs for the suit;

3
D. For attorney’s fees; and
4
E. For other such relief as this Court deems just and proper.
5
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 11th day of June, 2009.
6
LORONA, STEINER,
7
8
9 BY: /s/ Jess A. Lorona
Jess A. Lorona, Esq.
10 Gregory E. McClure, Esq.
11 Attorneys for Plaintiff


LORONA, STEINER,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
12
(602) 277-3000
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12

Complaint (Filed Copy)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complaint (Filed Copy)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:09-cv-01264-ECV Document 1 Filed 06/11/2009 Page 1 of 12

8 IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3909

12 City of Phoenix, a political subdivision

of the State of Arizona; City of Phoenix

23 PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

1 2. Defendant, City of Phoenix, is, at all times relevant, a political

2 subdivision of the State of Arizona, located in Maricopa County, Arizona.

PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3909

5. Defendants, Mary Freund (“Detective Freund”) and John Doe Freund,

16 taken by Defendant Mary Freund were on behalf of the marital community.

17 6. Defendants, Christina Gonzalez (“Lieutenant Gonzalez”) and John Doe

24 Gonzalez were on behalf of the marital community.

1 7. Defendants, David Sampson (“Detective Sampson”) and Jane Doe

PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3909

16 9. Subject matter jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

17 10. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, venue is proper in this Court.

24 enforcement officer with no prior history of criminal activity. Officers used a

2 force on the person of Plaintiff.

9 Lewis in approximately March of 2002. At that time, Lewis was embroiled in a

PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3909

2 her duties as a City of Phoenix Police Officer.

9 private investigative work.

PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3909

regarding the family court proceeding.

PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3909

26. Additionally, Defendant Freund’s reports intentionally omitted

16 introduction of false evidence and the malicious prosecution of Plaintiff.

24 dismissed with prejudice.

25 30. Plaintiff requests a jury trial in this matter.

PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3909

Indictment against Mr. Scotti.

13 35. By participating in the investigation and presentation of false evidence

20 Scotti of his constitutional rights.

21 37. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Mr. Scotti incurred financial,

5 40. The Defendants, by conduct, participation or knowledge, initiated or

PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3909

13 dismissed with prejudice.

20 financial, emotional, and personal injuries.

24 more fully set forth herein.

1 47. The Defendants, as entities and individuals charged with enforcement of

9 criminal prosecution of Mr. Scotti.

PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3909

damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

13 INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

20 infliction of emotional distress.

1 53. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants actions, Mr. Scotti

2 suffered severe emotional distress.

11 56. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Mr. Scotti

PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3909

13 experience mental pain and suffering.

17 set forth herein.

2 testimony before the grand jury.

PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3909

16 62. As a further direct and proximate result of the conduct by Defendants,

24 A. For compensatory damages, plus special and incidental damages in such

25 a sum as may be proven at trial;

1 B. For punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial;

2 C. For costs for the suit;

11 Attorneys for Plaintiff

PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3909

You might also like