, J' ,-"

SUMMONS --':(JR:COllI3T USE ONLY

(SOLO PARA USO DE LA CORTE)
(CITACION JUDICIAL)
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: NAR 22
(AVISO AL DEMANDADO):
PF1'IUVI'1fI po~CC ~/i'rl'l/FNT .. I'~ /';'~ "..-.f'7 of ".IU10"~
f O'':'i f)/s-r/i'lC-t /fffOlllN€'I' co,,fyrY aF SCHoN" Q 1",,1./..<-
e,..J,""Iy 01 v",Ic~~,.. h r-; ."d DoES J-l{o/ I
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF :
(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
RlCHARD BRUMFIELD, an individual;

NOTICE! You have been sued . The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information
below.
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy
served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you . Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your
case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response . You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts
Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp). your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you . If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask
the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property
may be taken without further warning from the court.
There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney
referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate
these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpcalffomia.org) , the California Courts Online Sell·Help Center
(www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhefp). or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and
costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case.
jA VI$O/ La han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dlas, la corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su versi6n. Lea la Informaci6n a
continuaci6n.
Tiene 30 DiAS DE CALENDARIO despues de que Ie entreguen esta citaci6n y papeles legales para presentar una respuesta par escrito en esta
corte y hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta 0 una lIamada telef6nica no 10 protegen. Su respuesta por escrffo tiene que estar
en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta .
Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte y mas informaci6n en el Centro de Ayuda de las Carles de California (wwIN.sucorte.ca .gov), en la
bibfioteca de leyes de su condado 0 en la corte que Ie quede mas cerea. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentaci6n, pida al secretario de la corle
que Ie de un formulan'O de exenei6n de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la corte Ie
podra quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin mas advertencia.
Hay otros requisffos legales. Es recomendable que lIame a un abogado inmediata mente. $; no conace a un abogado, puede lIamar a un servicio de
remisi6n a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpla can los requisitos para obtener servicios legales gratuitos de un
programa de servicios legales sin fines de luero. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de /uero en el sma web de California Legal Services,
(INwIN.lawhelpcalifomia .org). en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, (wwvv.sucorte.ca.gov) 0 poniendose en contacto can la corte 0 el
colegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Por ley, la corte tiene derecho a reclamar las cuotas -y los costas exentos par imponer un gravamen sabre
cua/quier recuperaci6n de $10,000 6 mas de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo a una concesi6n de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que
pagarel gravamen de fa corte antes de que fa corte pueda desecharel caso.

The name and address of the court is: CASE NUMBER:

Sonoma County Superior Court

(EI nombre y direcci6n de la corte es): IN,me;z;v_-z. '-1 "'I '3 )" 3
Hall of Justice, 600 Administration Drive, Santa Rosa, CA 95403
The name , address , a nd telephone number of plaintiff's attorney, or plaint iff without an attorney, is:
la direcci6n y el numero de leletono del abogado del demandanle, a del demandanle que no liene abogado, es):
(EI nombre,
Arcolina Panto (SBN:235786) 166 Santa Clara Ave, Oakland, CA 946 10; (510)658-2500
DATE MAR 2 2 2011 Clerk, by JOSE O. GUILLEN , Deputy
(Fecha) (Secrelario) 1·: :::;1:] Fe" !""" (Adjunlo)
(For proof of service of Ihis summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-OIO).}
(Para prueba de entrega de esta citation use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS·O IO)).
NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served
ISEAL! 1. [2J as an individual defendant.
2. D as the person sued under the fictitious name 01 (specify):

3. m on behalf of (specify). Petaluma Police Opt, Sonoma County District Attorney

4.
Foon Adopteclloc Mandatory Use
JudiCial Council of California
SUM -HXl [Rev. July 1, 20091
under: D CCP 416.10 (corporation) D CCP 416.60 (minor)
D CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) D CCP 416.70 (conservatee)
D CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) D CC P 416.90 (authorized person)
c=:J other (specify) :
D by personal delivery on (date):
Page 1 of 1
SUMMONS Code 01 Civil Procedure §§ 41 2.20, 465
www.coortinfo.C8.goV
 1:, It"'· r.,
.!:::::.!.. ~- F:ci~:p
r- _

ONt 1
CM 010-
•. -.9qrnf
~~ORNEY OR PARTY VIJITHOUT ATTORNEY fame) State Bar number, and address}: (lsE ,_.
Arcolina Panto, Esq. (SBN: 23 786
LAW OFFICES
t ;1 ••r-----.
-- f· ,-- 1
- -' .. ~.
..I

166 Santa C lara A venue - -"""".- ."--~

Oakland. CA 94610
TElEPHONE NO. ~ 10)658-2500 FAX NO.:
ATIORNEY FOR (N,me): laintiff Richard Brumfield MAR 22 2011
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SONOMA
0/ :U: ..-· ~. ,,_
STREET ADDRESS: 600 Administration Drive \.J\.~I. _~!,' ,~. ~ i.jJ.:':·iT
MAILING ADDRESS: Rm 107J OJ. I.,~(...I·L
',. !i_ r ... r-; , "
~O ' I 1. ,1":; ;'~,
CITY AND ZIP CODE· Santa Rosa, CA 95403 , •.Ii";. (. OF ('(, ;~\\ 'A
BRANCH NAME: Hall of Justice ·.L"ilJ,\ "

CASE NAME:
Brumfield v. Petaluma Pol ice, Sonoma County District Attorney
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET CASE NUMBER:
Complex Case Designation
[{J Unlimited 0 Limited ~ Of - 1.-'-{q '3 S-.3
(Amount (Amount 0 Counter 0 Joinder
demanded demanded is Filed with first appearance by defendant JUDGE REN~ AUGUSTE CHOUTEA
exceeds $25.000) $25,000 or less) (Ca l. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) DEPT:

Items 1-6 below must be completed (see mstructlOns on page 2)

1. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case :
Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil litigation
D Auto (22) 0 Breach of contracUwarranty (06) (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3,403)
o Uninsured motorist (46) D Rule 3.740 coilections (Og) D AntitrustfTrade regulation (03)
Other PIJPOIWD (Personallnjury/Property o Other collections (09) o Construction defect (10)
DamagelWrongful Death) Tort D Insurance coverage (18) o Mass tort (40)
o Asbestos (04) D o
o Product liability (24)
Other contract (37)
Real Property o
Securities litigation (28)
EnvironmentalfToxic tort (30)
D
[ZJ
Medical malpractice (4S)
Other PlfPDIWD (23)
D Eminent domain/Inverse
condemnation (1 4)
o Insurance coverage claims arising from the
above listed provisionally complex case
Non·PIIPDIWD (Other) Tort o . Wrongful eviction (33) types (41)

o Business tortlunfair business practice (07) o Other real property (26) Enforcement of Judgment
o Civil lights (08) Unlawful Detainer D Enforcement of judgment (20)
o Defamation (13) D Commercial (31) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint
o Fraud (16) D Residential (32) D RICO(27)
D Intellectual property (19) o Drugs (38) o Other complaint (not specified above) (42)
D Professional negligence (2S) Judicial Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition
D Other non-PIIPDIVVD tort (3S) 0 Asset forfeiture (OS) D Partnership and corporate governance (21)
Employment 0 Petition re : arbitration award (11)
o Other petition (not specified above) (43)
D Wrongful termination (36) D Writ of mandate (02)
D Other employment (1S) 0 Other judicial review (39)
2. This case LJ is W is not complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark the
factors req uiring exceptional judicial management:
a. 0 Large number of separately represented parties d. D Large number of witnesses
b.O Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel e. D Coordination with related actions pending in one or more cou rts
issues that will be time-consuming to resolve in other counties , states, or countries, or in a federal court
c. 0 Substantial amount of documentary evidence f. 0 Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision

3. Remedies sought (check al/ that apply): a.W monetary b. [Z] nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief c. [ZJ punitive
4. Number of causes of action (specify): 3
5. This case is D [Z] is not a class action suit.
6. If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case . - 5.)

Date: 3/22/20 II
Arcolina Panto, Esq.
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME) OR ATTORNEY FOR PARTY)
NOTICE
• Plaintiff must file this cover sheet w ith the first paper filed in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases filed
under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220:) Failure to file may result
in sanctions.
• File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule .
• If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the Califomia Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all
other parties to the action or proceeding.
• Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case , this cover sheet will be used for statistica l purposes onlv.
!Sa e 1 of2

Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Cal. Rules of Court. rules 2.30, 3.220, 3.40Q.....3.403, 3.740:
Judicial Council of California
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Cal. Standards of Judicial Administration, Sid. 3.10
CM'{)10 IRev. July 1. 2007) www.courtinfo.ca.gov
 Arcolina Panto, Esq. (SBN: 235786)
1
LAW OFFICES 11,1P 22 l-,v-/' i
166 Santa Clara Avenue
2
Oakland, CA 94610
3 (510) 658-2500

4
Attorneys for Plaintiff
RICHARD BRUMFIELD
5

6 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

7 COUNTY OF SONOMA - UNLIMITED

8
RICHARD BRUMFIELD, an individual; COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
9 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff,
10 v. Case No. ~V -N'13~3
11 PETALUMA POLICE DEPARTMENT, a 1. MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
public entity of unknown forin; DISTRICT
12 ATTORNEY COUNTY OF SONOMA, a 2. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
public entity of unknown form; and DOES EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
13 1-40,

Defendants. 3. NEGLIGENCE [EMOTIONAL DISTRESS]

14

15

16
Plaintiff RICHARD BRUMFIELD (hereinafter "Plaintiff BRUMFIELD") hereby alleges:
17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - I

 I.
1

2 NATURE OF ACTION

3 1. On August 26, 2009, Plaintiff BRUMFIELD was wrongfully arrested on

4 marijuana charges. Despite the fact that Plaintiff BRUMFIELD showed arresting authorities the

5 California State issued medical cannabis patient identification card, Defendants did not relent.

6
Instead, Plaintiff BRUMFIELD, was held injail for weeks where he sufferecI serious and life
7
threatening physical injury. Defendants continued to prosecute Plaintiff even though he was
8
always immunized from prosecution pursuant to the laws of the State of California. In short,
9
Defendants failed to respect the laws of the State of California which they are entrusted by the
10
people to enforce. Plaintiff was prosecuted wrongfully for more than seven months which
11
caused him inordinate harm and damages.
12
2. These events render Defendants liable pursuant to the laws of the State of
13
California.
14

15
3. As a direct consequence of Defendants' illegal acts, Plaintiff suffered economic

16 consequential, special, and other damages plus attorneys' fees all to his detriment.

17 II.

18 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

19 4. The substantial majority of the acts complained of occurred in Sonoma Count
20
and, as such venue is proper.
21
5. Jurisdiction is proper because Defendants have their principal business withi
22
Sonoma County and conducted business in the County of Sonoma at all relevant times. Plainti
23
is informed and believes and on the basis of said information and belief alleges that Defendant
24
are citizens of Sonoma County, California.
25

COMPLAlNT FOR DAMAGES - 2

 1
,6. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on the basis of said information and belief

2 alleges that one or more of the individual Defendants reside within Sonoma as citizens of th

3
county,

4 III.

5 PARTIES

6 7. Plaintiff BRUMFIELD is an individual, and at all relevant times has lived in th

7 State of California.
8
8, Defendant PETALUMA POLICE DEPARTMENT (hereinafter Defendan
9
POLICE) is a public entity of unknown form that did business in Sonoma County, California a
10
all relevant times. Plaintiff alleges Defendant POLICE is a citizen of Sonoma County
11
California,
12
9, Defendant SONOMA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY (hereinafter Defendan
13

DA) is a public entity of unknown form that did business in Sonoma County, California at al
14

15 relevant times. Plaintiff alleges Defendant DA is a citizen of Sonoma County, California.

16 10. Defendants DOES 1-40 are herein sued under fictitious names. Defendant

17 DOES 1-20 are business or public entities of unknown form who were hired by Defendants t

18 advance their own business interests, Their true names and capacities are unknown to Plaintiff
19
Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that DOES 21-40 were the employees
20
officers , directors, managing agents, and/or supervisors of Defendants, and/or DOES 1-20, wh
21
were acting within the course and scope of their employment and authority at all times relevan
22
to this Complaint
23
II . At all times herein mentioned, the individual Defendants, both named and yet t
24
be named as DOES, were agents and/or servants and/or employees of business and public entit
25

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 3

 Defendants, and at all times herein mentioned, were acting within the course and scope of sai
1

agency, service, and employment.

2

3 12. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that there exists, and, at al

4 times relevant to this complaint, existed a unity of interests between certain of the Defendant

5 such that any individuality and separateness between these certain Defendants had ceased, an

6 those certain Defendants are the alter ego of the other certain Defendants and exerted contro
7
over each other. Adherence to the fiction of the separate existence of those certain Defendants a
8
an entity distinct from other certain Defendants will permit an abuse of the corporate privileg
9
and would sanction fraud and or promote injustice. Liability should be imposed on al
10
Defendants to avoid an inequitable result. Plaintiff alleges upon information and belief tha
11
certain unnamed corporate entities shared a single business venture and utilized the sam
12
employees, operated in the same business locations, and benefited jointly from transactions an
13
were joint employers and/or integrated employers.
14

15
13. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each Defendant aide

16 and abetted each other such that the principal is liable for acts of each Defendant.

17 14. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times mentione

18 in this Complaint, Defendants were the agents and employees of their co-Defendants, and i

19 doing the things alleged in this Complaint were acting within the course and scope of suc
20
agency and employment and acted in such a manner as to ratity the conduct of their co
21
Defendants.
22
15 . Plaintiff alleges that any and all actions violative of California law taken b
23
individuals within the scope and course of employment for Defendants render business and 0
24
public agency entity Defendants liable in respondeat superior. Employers are vicariously liabl
25

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 4

 for torts of employees committed within the scope of employment. [Perez v. Van Gronigen
1

2
Sons Inc. (1986) 41 Ca1.3d 962, 967].

3 IV.

4 FACTUAL BACKGROUND
5 16. Plaintiff BRUMFIELD is a disabled Veteran who has dedicated his life to

6 alternative and holistic treatment of medical conditions both chronic and temporary.
7 17. Plaintiff BRUMFIELD has spent inordinate time and expense in his efforts to
8
serve people who are disabled, ill, convalescing or otherwise sickened thereby diminishing their
9
overall health and wellbeing.
10
18. Plaintiff BRUMFIELD established Pacific Coast Wellness and Evolution Center
11
to better advance his purpose of serving those who need alternative and holistic medical
12
treatment.
13
19. Pacific Cost Wellness and Evolution Center is a California Non-profit Mutual
14

15 Benefit Unincorporated Association, at all relevant times having its principle place of business

16 and citizenship in California. Pacific Coast Wellness and Evolution Center was located in Santa

17 Rosa until the illegal acts of Defendants forced it from that location. At all relevant times,

18 Plaintiffs Non-Profit was located on Guerneville Road in Santa Rosa, California.

19 20. Plaintiff BRUMFIELD makes every effort to comply with all applicable laws and
20
statutes in the State of California.
21
21. Most notably, Plaintiff BRUMFIELD registered his recommendation for
22
treatment with medical cannabis through the State of California. Plaintiff BRUMFIELD is a
23
card carrying medical cannabis patient, who voluntarily carries the State of California issued
24
identification card.
25

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 5

 22. Plaintiff BRUMFIELD alleges that many medical cannabis patients in California
1

2 refuse to apply for the State issued identification card out of fear that they will be identified and

3 prosecuted.

4 23. On August 26, 2009, Plaintiff BRUMFIELD was arrested by Defendant POLICE

5 on marijuana charges.

6 24. Plaintiff BRUMFIELD was held in jail for weeks where he suffered serious and
7
life threatening medical conditions.
8
25. Plaintiffs Non-profit Pacific Coast Wellness and Evolution Center ceased regular
9
operations because it was dependent on Plaintiff BRUMFIELD's ability to conduct its business.
10
26. Plaintiff BRUMFIELD continued to assert his immunity and affirmative defense
11
pursuant to the laws of the State of California.
12
27. Maliciously, without probable cause or any legitimate reason, Defendant DA
13

14
continued to press charges against Plaintiff BRUMFIELD even after Plaintiff presented his State

15 issued medical cannabis patient identification card and after Plaintiff asserted his affirmative

16 defense as a medical cannabis patient.

17 28. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants acted maliciously when they continued to press

18 charges after Plaintiff BRUMFIELD presented his State issued medical cannabis card and raised

19 the affirmative defense and alleged his complete immunity.

20
29. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants ' true purpose was to vex, annoy, harass,
21
intimidate, and injure legitimate medical cannabis patients.
22
30. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants either knew or should have known that they had
23
no legal authority to prosecute Plaintiff BRUMFIELD, and on the contrary, had an obligation not
24
to arrest or prosecute Plaintiff pursuant to the laws of the State of California.
25

COMPLAlNT FOR DAMAGES - 6

 31. Charges against Plaintiff BRUMFIELD were not dropped until March 26, 2010,
1

more than seven months after the wrongful arrest.

2

3 32. Plaintiff alleges that charges were only dropped against him because he absolutel

4 refused to negotiate in any way regarding his immunity from prosecution.

5 33 . Plaintiff correctly believed he was immune to criminal prosecution.

6 34. Defendant DA either knew or should have known that this was a correct assertion
7
of Plaintiff BRUMFIELD's, that no plea bargain should have been proffered because Plaintiff
8
BRUMFIELD was actually completely immune from criminal prosecution and never should
9
have been arrested.
10
35. Plaintiff alleges that the malicious actions of Defendant POLICE were
11
exacerbated and damages greatly increased by Defendant DA's continued efforts to press
12
charges.
13
36. Plaintiff BRUMFIELD alleges that the actions of Defendants foment and instill
14

15 fear in legitimate medical cannabis patients, further discouraging citizens of California from

16 utilizing what should be protective mechanisms provided by law, specifically the voluntary State

17 issued identification program.

18 37. Plaintiff BRUMFIELD alleges that the actions of Defendants stigmatize law

19 abiding citizens who make every effort to comply with statutory regulations.
20
38. As a direct consequence of the unlawful events of Defendants, Plaintiff suffered
21
general, economic, consequential, emotional, special, and other damages plus attorneys' fees' and
22
costs, all to his detriment.
23
39. Plaintiff BRUMFIELD did timely notify Defendants of his intent to file suit in
24
September of2010 pursuant to California Government Code Section 910.
25

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 7

 40. A representative ofthe City of Petaluma rejected Plaintiff BRUMFIELD's tort
1

claim form claiming that it was untimely sent.

2

3 41. Defendants must not be permitted to deny liability on the basis of a late tort claim

4 because the torts herein alleged did not accrue until the dismissal of the charges.

5 42. Furthermore, Plaintiff BRUMFIELD alleges that the malicious prosecution and

6
all actions underl ying the criminal charges against him did create inordinate emotional distress a
7
well as causing severe economic harm to himself and his Non-profit, Pacific Coast Wellness and
8
Evolution Center.
9
43. Plaintiff alleges that California Government Code Sections 901 , and 911.2
10
indicate that the tort claim form (described in Section 910) must be presented within six months
11
of the accrual of the cause of action. Plaintiff alleges that the date of accrual for the torts herein
12
is March 26, 2010 when the charges against Plaintiff BRUMFIELD were finally dropped.
13

Regarding malicious prosecution, the cause of action accrues on the date the proceedings were
14

15 dismissed or terminated. [Babb v. Superior Court o/Sonoma County (1971) 3 Ca1.3d 841, 846].

16 44. Plaintiff alleges that claims included in this lawsuit are those for which no failure

17 to notify pursuant to the tort claim requirements can be alleged.

18 45 . Plaintiff BRUMFIELD alleges that the severe harm he suffered when he was
19 wrongfully jailed was proximately caused by the malicious, intentional andlor negligent conduct
20
of Defendants.
21
46. Plaintiff alleges that severe harm and damages were caused by the wrongful
22
actions of Defendants herein alleged.
23
II
24
II
25

COMPLAINT fOR DAMAGES - 8

 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
1
Malicious Prosecution
2 (Against All Defendants)

3 47. Plaintiff incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein, each and ever

4 allegation set forth above in this Complaint. As a separate and distinct cause of action, Plaintiff

5 complains against Defendants, and each of them, as follows:

6 48. Plaintiffs alleging malicious prosecution must show that the action taken against
7
them was commenced by or at the direction of Defendants, was pursued to the legal termination
8
in Plaintiff's favor, was brought without probable cause, and was initiated with malice.
9
[Crowley v. Katleman (1994) 8 Ca1.4th 666, 676].
10
49. Defendants directed criminal action against Plaintiff.
11
50. Plaintiff presented the State issued identification card which is designed to
12
immunize against prosecution, but Defendants still pressed criminal charges.
13
51. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, who are charged with enforcing the law, must
14

15
respect the law in all aspects.

16 52. Plaintiff was charged with violations of California Health and Safety Code

17 Sections 11359 and 11360 which prohibit transportation and sale of marijuana.

18 53. California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.765 specifically prohibits
19
prosecution of Health and Safety Code Sections 11359 and 11360 for patients who carry the
20
State issued medical cannabis identification card as well as qualified patients who do not choose
21
to participate in the voluntary identification card program.
22
54. California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.71(e) prohibits arrest on
23
specified marijuana charges for those who voluntarily participate in the State issued
24
identification program for medical cannabis patients.
25

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 9

 55. No less than the Supreme Court of California held that one purpose of the 2003
1

2 amendments to the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 was to prevent unnecessary arrest. [People

3 v. K elly (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1008,1014]. The Kelly Court, explained further its opinion that the

4 "heart" of the 2003 amendments is in the identification card program that provides an

5 "affirmative defense" and "protection against arrest." [Id. emphasis in original] .

6 56. Thus, Defendants were obligated not to arrest Plaintiff and not to prosecute him
7
pursuant to the laws of the State of California and considering the opinion of the Supreme Court
8
of California. Furthermore, as a result of the statutory scheme and the opinion of the Supreme
9
Court of California, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant entities should be held liable pursuant to
10
Government Code Section 815.6 since Defendant agencies were under a mandatory duty not to
11
arrest and not to prosecute and their failure to perform those duties resulted in the very harm that
12
was supposed to be prevented.
13

57. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed in their duty to comply with the
14

15 Compassionate Use Act of 1996 as amended in 2003 especially considering that Plaintiff

16 voluntarily carries the State identification card. If agencies such as Defendants can ignore the

17 rights that are supposed to be conferred by the State issued identification card, then there is no

18 purpose to the legislation and there is no incentive for any individual to voluntarily participate.
19
In essence, the program would be pointless. Thus, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to
20
abide by mandatory duties contained in the above mentioned statutes that were designed to
21
prevent the very harm incurred.
22
58. Furthermore, Defendant DA was obligated to dismiss the charges as soon as
23
Plaintiff raised the affirmative defense. And, Defendant POLICE had no reason to believe
24
Plaintiff was not complying with the law in every aspect regarding his State identification card.
25

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 10

 Thus, Defendant POLICE never should have arrested Plaintiff and Defendant DA was obligated
1
to drop the charges.
2

3 59. Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.775, people like

4 Plaintiff who have a valid State identification card, and those who are qualified patients without

5 the identification card, who associate within the State of California in order collectively or

6 cooperatively to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes must not solely on that basis be subjec
7
to criminal prosecution under Sections 11357 (possession), 11358 (cultivation/processing),
8
11359 (sale), 11360 (transport), 11366 (place for distribution), 11366.5 (management of place
9
for distribution) or 11570 (nuisance). Patients who voluntarily participate in the identification
10
card program must meet requirements listed in Health and Safety Code Section 11362.76, and
11
pay a fee pursuant to Section 11362.715. The incentive to pay the fee and go through extra steps
12
to get the identification card, is the resulting higher level of protection from prosecution pursuant
13

14
to Section 11362.765 . But, qualified patients without an identification card are also entitled to

15
protections pursuant to Section I 1362.7(f).

16 60. Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.78, a state or local

17 law enforcement agency or officer must not refuse to accept the State issued identification card

18 unless the agency or officer has reasonable cause to believe the information contained in the card

19 is false or fraudulent.
20
61. Defendants must not be permitted to avoid liability based on any in1munity
21
because of the statutory provisions of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 as amended in 2003
22
li sted herein that require no arrest be made and no criminal prosecution be charged.
23

24

25

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - II

 62. Plaintiff's arrest and ongoing prosecution was in direct contravention of the
1

2 Compassionate Use Act of 1996 as amended in 2003, referred to herein, thereby rendering

3 Defendants liable pursuant to Government Code Section 815.6.

4 63 . Plaintiff alleges that Defendants either knew or should have known of their

5 obligations pursuant to the law considering Plaintiff was a voluntary participant in the State

6
issued medical cannabis identification card program; Plaintiff presented his card and asserted the
7
affirmative defense and his immunity at every opportunity.
8
64. Criminal proceedings terminated in Plaintiff's favor when Defendant DA
9
dismissed the charges in the interests of justice.
10
65. Termination of prosecution is favorable when it reflects the opinion of the
11
prosecuting party that the action lacked merit, or would ultimately result in a decision in favor of
12
the prosecuted party. [Camarena v. Sequoia Ins. Co . (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 1089, 1099].
13

14
66. A voluntary dismissal may be a favorable termination sufficient to support a

15 malicious prosecution action. [Fuentes v. Berry (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th \800, 1808]. Usually, a

16 voluntary unilateral dismissal is a termination in favor of the defendant. [Id.].

17 67. No proper purpose underlies Plaintiffs arrest and subsequent prosecution.

18 68. Plaintiff alleges Defendants' wrongful actions as alleged herein were designed to

19 vex, annoy, harass and injure Plaintiff.

20
69. Plaintiff alleges Defendants had malicious motives and a desire to deliberately
21
destroy his Non-profit caregiving association, Pacific Coast Wellness and Evolution Center.
22
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were successful in their attempts to remove him from the prior
23
location of Pacific Coast Wellness and Evolution Center, and that this caused inordinate expense
24
and hardship for Plaintiff.
25

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 12

 70. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants must not be permitted to prosecute medical
1

2 cannabis patients in contravention of California law or to subvert the will of the people of

3 California as expressed though the intent of the California legislature and current legislation.

4 71. As a direct consequence of the unlawful events of Defendants, Plaintiff suffered

5 general, economic, consequential, emotional, special, and other damages plus attorneys' fees and

6 costs, all to his detriment. Plaintiff claims compensatory damages, punitive damages and
7
attorneys' fees pursuant to Babb v. Superior Court of Sonoma County and California Civil Code
8
Sections 3333 (compensatory), 3294 (punitive) and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021 et seq.
9
(attorneys' fees). [Supra ., 3 Ca1.3d 848 n.4l .
10
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, a
11
more fully set forth below.
12
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
13
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
(Against All Defendants)
14

15
72. Plaintiff incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein, each and eve

16 allegation set forth above in this Complaint.

17 73. As a separate and distinct cause of action, Plaintiff complains against Defendants

18 and each of them, as follows:

19 74. California case law allows a Plaintiff to recover damages for intentional inflictio
20
of emotional distress if he or she suffers severe emotional injury caused by the defendant'
21
outrageous conduct with the intent to cause, or with reckless disregard of the probability 0
22
causing, emotional distress. [Wilkins v. National Broad. Co., (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1066
23
1087].
24

25

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 13

 75. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the actions 0
1

2 Defendants, and each of them, as aforesaid, were intentional, extreme, and outrageous. Plaintif

3 is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that such actions were done with the inten

4 to cause serious emotional distress or with reckless disregard of the probability of causin

5 Plaintiff serious emotional distress.

6 76. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants, and each of them, a
7
aforesaid, Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress which has caused Plaintiff to susta'
8
severe, serious and permanent injuries to his person, all to his damage in a sum to be show
9
according to proof and within the jurisdiction ofthis court.
10
77. As a direct, legal and proximate result of the aforesaid tortious conduct 0
11
Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff was prevented for a time from engaging in his usua
12
occupation, thereby sustaining a loss of income, all to Plaintiff's damage in a sum to be show
13
according to proof.
14

15 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, a

16 more fully set forth below.

17 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Negligence [Emotional Distress)
18 (Against AIl Defendants)
19 78. Plaintiff incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein, each and eve
20
allegation set forth above in this Complaint. As a separate and distinct cause of action, Plaintif
21
complains against Defendants, and each of them, as follows:
22
79. To prevail on a negligence theory of liability a Plaintiff must prove duty, breach
23
causation and damages. [Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Ca1.4th 1200, 1205].
24

25

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 14

 1
SO. The duty is defendant' s duty to protect plaintiff from harm. [Bily v. Arthur Youn

& Co. (1992) 3 Ca1.4th 370, 397].

2

3 Sl. Whether or not a duty actually exists between plaintiff and defendant is a questio

4 oflaw. [Kentucky Fried Chicken o/Cal. v. Superior Court (1997) 14 Ca1.4 th 814, 819].

5 S2. A determination that a duty exists reflects a policy decision that an individua
6 plaintiff should be protected from harm. [Dillon v. Legg (1968) 68 Cal.2d 728, 734].
7
83. In cases of certain types, liability is appropriate for damage done. [Tarasoff v.
8
Regents ofUniversily of California (1976) 17 Ca1.3d 425, 434].
9
84. Plaintiffs may recover for emotional distress that is proximately caused b
10
defendants' negligent conduct or violation of a statutory standard. [Molien v. Kaiser Foundatio
11
Hospitals (1980) 27 Cal.3d 916].
12
85. . In regards to negligent infliction of emotional distress (hereinafter NIED), it is no
13

its own tort but a form of negligence. [Marlene F. v. Affiliated Psychiatric Medical Clini
14

15
(1989) 48 Ca1.3d 583].

16 86. Allegations herein are of Plaintiff as the direct victim, so that bystander NIE

17 cases are not applicable, and principles of negligence determine whether all elements of the to

18 are established. [Zavala v. Arce (1997) 58 Cal.App.4 th 915, 918].

19
87. Negligence per se may be established when: I) a defendant violated a statute; 2
20
the violation proximately caused injury; 3) the injury resulted from an occurrence the nature 0

21
which the statute was designed to prevent; and 4) the Plaintiff was in the class of persons fo
22
whose protection the statute was adopted. [See Capolungo v. Bondi (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 346
23
349].
24

25

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - IS

 88. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants breached a mandatory duty pursuant t
1

2 Government Code Section 815.6 and several statutory duties pursuant to the Compassionate Us

3 Act of 1996 as amended in 2003. These breaches did proximately cause injury which th

4 statutory scheme was designed to prevent, and Plaintiff is in the class of persons for whos

5 protection the statutes were adopted because he is a medical cannabis patient who voluntaril

6 participates in the State issued medical cannabis patient identification card program.
7
89. Furthermore, Defendants are charged with protecting all citizens of the State 0

8
California and all residents and businesses in Petaluma City and Sonoma County. As a citizen 0

9
the State of California, Defendants were obligated to promote and preserve Plaintiffs rights
10
Defendants trounced Plaintiff's rights without any regard for the law which they are supposed t
11
protect. Thus, Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff as a citizen, and failed in that duty, thereb
12
causing harm to the Plaintiff of a type that was foreseeable and proximately caused b
13
Defendants wrongful actions.
14

15
89. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants, and each of them, a

16 aforesaid, Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress, physical injury to his person, and oth

17 harm including loss of income and devastating losses to his Non-profit, Pacific Coast Wellnes

18 and Evolution Center, all of which was a foreseeable result of Defendants' wrongful actions.
19 90. As a direct, legal and proximate result of the aforesaid negligent conduct 0

20
Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff was prevented for a time from engaging in his usua
21
occupation, thereby sustaining a loss of income, all to Plaintiff's damage in a sum to be show
22
according to proof.
23
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, a
24
more fully set forth below.
25

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 16

 1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
2 I) For compensatory damages;

3 2) For general and special damages;

4 3) For punitive damages;

5
4) For costs of suit, expenses and attorneys' fees;

6
5) For declaratory, injunctive and such other relief as the Co

7
considers proper under the circumstances.

8
Dated: March 21 , 20 II LAW OFFICES
9
By: ~~
--~Ar~c7
01~in~a~pKa~n~to~,'E~s~q~.--------
10
Attorneys for Plaintiff
RICHARD BRUMFIELD
11

12
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
13

14
Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial on all issues triable by jury.
15

16

17
Dated: March 21, 2011 LAW OFFICE OF ARCOLINA PANTO

~ff~4---/
18
By:
19
~antO;ESq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
20
RICHARD BRUMFIELD
21

22

23

24

25

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 17