Burris, Nisenbaum, Curry & Lacy, LLP
7677 Oakport Street Suite 1120 Oakland, Ca. 94621 (510)839-5200 www.bncllaw.com ATTACHMENT "A - ASSAULT AND BATTERY CLAIM"
Claimant objects to your Claim Form because it requires information which constitutes an invasion of the Claimant's privacy. Moreover, the information is not required to be provided by the Claimant under California Government Code Section 910. For example, California Government Code Section 910 does not require that the Claimants provide their home and work numbers, driver's license number, date of birth, auto insurance name and policy number, a diagram of the location of the incident, any statements by the Claimants as to their reasons "for believing the City is liable for your damages, "or a description" of all damages which you believe you have incurred as a result of the incident." For the purposes of this document "CLAIMANT" means the individual claimant, claimants plural, and all plaintiffs and parties in interest represented by the BURRIS, NISENBAUM, CURRY & LACY, LLP. Therefore, Claimant submits the following information in support of his/her Claim pursuant to Government Code Section 910:
CLAIMANT NAME: Taurice Williams
ADDRESS TO WHICH ALL NOTICES ARE TO BE SENT: BURRIS, NISENBAUM, CURRY & LACY, LLP, Airport Corporate Centre, 7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1120, Oakland, CA 94621
CLAIMANT TELEPHONE NUMBER: C/O BURRIS, NISENBAUM, CURRY & LACY, LLP (510) 839-5200
PLEASE NOTE: COUNSEL REPRESENTS CLAIMANT AND ALL CONTACT SHOULD BE MADE WITH HIS ATTORNEY ONLY.
DATE AND TIME OF INCIDENT: May 7, 2023
LOCATION OF INCIDENT: Emeryville, CA.
THE FOLLOWING PROVIDES A GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE INDEBTEDNESS,
OBLIGATION, INJURY, DAMAGES OR LOSS INCURRED SO FAR AS IT MAY BE KNOWN AT THE TIME OF PRESENTATION OF THE CLAIM" AND "THE NAME OR
NAMES OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEE OR EMPLOYEES CAUSING THE INJURY, DAMAGES, OR LOSS, IF KNOWN: [Per Government Code Section 910]. For the purposes of this claim, "AGENCY" is defined by and refers to the municipal, county, or state entity, which governs the City of Emeryville Police Department.
DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENT:
On May 7, 2023, Claimant, Taurice Williams ("Williams") was heading towards CARE campus/shelter, a temporary homeless center that helps lower income people find work and housing accommodations. Williams stopped at a gas station on his way to the shelter. When Williams was at the gas station, he noticed an Emeryville Police officer make a U-turn and pull up behind him. CITY OF EMERYVILLE
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
1 AUG 2 3 2023
RECEIVED
Burris, Nisenbaum, Curry & Lacy, LLP
7677 Oakport Street Suite 1120 Oakland, Ca. 94621 (510)839-5200 www.bncllaw.com Williams rolled down his driver's side window for the officer to approach. At this point Williams had his hands up. The officer said "I'm pulling you over because you have a broken taillight." Williams knew he had broken lights as well as a curfew with the CARE program, hence, why he pulled into the gas station. The officer asked Williams for his information. Out of an abundance of caution, Williams told the officer that he had to reach into his pocket to provide the officer with his identification. Williams advised the officer that the car was his. The officer took Williams' identification to his patrol car to run his information. As the initial officer ran Williams' information, and second officer approached Williams' car from the passenger side.
When Williams got his identification back from the initial officer he gave the second officer his identification.
Once the officers ran Williams' information, the officers removed Williams from his car and placed him in the back of a patrol car. Williams asked the officers why he was being arrested.
Williams told the officers that he was not on probation or parole.
Once Williams was in the back of the patrol car, the officers went inside of Williams car to search it. The officers, without legal cause, went as far as opening a duffle bag that was in the back seat of the car. The officers found a firearm inside the duffle bag. The officers took Williams ID and failed to return it to him. The officers threw Williams ID into Williams' car and Williams' car was then impound with his identification still inside the car.
The officers charged Williams with possession of firearm. Williams was in jail for a week and a half. During that period, Williams made three Court appearances. During the final Court appearance Williams' charges were dropped on the basis that the officers did not have probable cause to search Williams' car.
Williams worked as a Janitor for Health Services Group since 2022. Because of the incident, Williams lost his job and his car as he was not able to afford the accrued fees to retrieve his car from the impound lot on top of the difficulties, he had in replacing his lost Identification card.
DESCRIPTION OF CLAIM:
Claimant alleges that the conduct of individual employees, agents, and/or servants of AGENCY constitute State statutory violations, which might include but are not limited to assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, negligence, negligent hiring, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Claimant alleges those individual employees, agents and/or servants of AGENCY are responsible for Claimant's injuries, and acts and/or omissions committed within the course or scope of employment under the theory of respondeat superior. Respondeat superior liability includes but is not limited to, negligent training, supervision, control and/or discipline.
Individual employees, agents, and/or servants of the AGENCY, include but are not limited to, the chief of police, sheriff, or an individual of comparable title, in charge of law enforcement for AGENCY, and DOES 1-100, and/or each of them, individually and/or while acting in concert with one another.
2 Burris, Nisenbaum, Curry & Lacy, LLP
7677 Oakport Street Suite 1120 Oakland, Ca. 94621 (510)839-5200 www.bncllaw.com Claimant alleges the appropriate offenses listed below.
Claimant alleges that assault included, but was not limited to, conduct causing claimant to reasonably fear a harmful offensive touching upon claimant's person.
Claimant alleges that battery included, but was not limited to, conduct resulting in a harmful offensive touching upon claimant's person in a manner foreseeable likely to cause injury.
Claimant alleges that false imprisonment included, but was not limited to, acts or omissions causing claimant to be confined or restricted to an area without means of escape while claimant was aware of the confinement.
Claimant alleges that false arrest included, but not limited to, acts that placed claimant under wrongful arrest without a warrant, actually caused claimant harm and the arresting person(s) were a substantial factor in causing that harm.
Claimant alleges that negligence included, but was not limited to, breach of duty upon failing to exercise due care by placing claimant at risk of serious physical injury, detention and/or arrest.
Claimant alleges that negligent hiring included, but was not limited to, breach of duty upon failing to exercise due care by hiring individuals likely to cause physical injury to citizens while acting under color of law in an official capacity.
Claimant alleges that negligent infliction of emotional distress included, but was not limited to, the failure to use reasonable care to avoid causing emotional distress to another individual. The negligent conduct resulted in Claimant's physical injuries.
Claimant alleges that intentional infliction of emotional distress included, but was not limited to, outrageous acts or omissions with the intent to causing emotional distress to another individual.
The intentional conduct resulted in Claimant's physical injuries.
Claimant alleges violation of California Civil Code Section 52.1, for actions by law enforcement personnel, whether or not acting under color of law, which interfere by threats, intimidation, or coercion, or attempts to intertere by threats, intimidation, or coercion, with the exercise o njoyment by any individual or individuals of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state.
Claimant alleges that malicious prosecution included, but was not limited to, acts or omissions causing claimant to be falsely arrested and criminally charged without probable cause.
Claimant will allege other causes of action subject to continuing discovery.
DESCRIBE INJURY OR DAMAGE:
Claimant has, or may have in the future, claims for general damages, including, but not limited to, claims for pain, suffering and emotional distress in amounts to be determined according to proof.
3 Burris, Nisenbaum, Curry & Lacy, LLP
7677 Oakport Street Suite 1120 Oakland, Ca. 94621 (510)839-5200 www.bncllaw.com Claimant may have and/or may continue to have in the future, claims for special damages, including, but not limited to, claims for medical and related expenses, lost wages, damage to career, damage to educational pursuits, damage to property and/or other special damages in amounts to be determined according to proof.
Claimant may have, and/or may continue to have in the future, damages for permanent mental injuries, permanent mental scarring and/or other psychological disabilities in an amount according to proof.
NAME OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE(S) BELIEVED TO HAVE CAUSED INJURY OR DAMAGE:
City of Emeryville Police Department Officers
DEMAND FOR PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE:
Claimant does hereby demand that AGENCY including, but not limited to, the appropriate city or county law enforcement agency, its employees, servants and/or attorneys, maintain and preserve all evidence, documents and tangible materials which relate in any manner whatsoever to the subject matter of this Claim, including until the completion of any and all civil and/or criminal litigation arising from the events which are the subject matter of this Claim. This demand for preservation of evidence includes, but is not limited to, a demand that all public safety entities preserve all tapes, logs and/or other tangible materials of any kind until the completion of any and all civil and criminal litigation arising from the subject matter of this claim.
AMOUNT OF CLAIM:
This claim is in excess of $25,000. Jurisdiction is designated as "unlimited" and jurisdiction would be in the United States District Court and/or Superior Court of the State of California.
DATED: August 21, 2023
Regards,
K. Chike Odiwe
Burris, Nisenbaum, Curry & Lacy, LLP
4 Burris, Nisenbaum, Curry & Lacy, LLP
7677 Oakport Street Suite 1120 Oakland, Ca. 94621 (510)839-5200 www.bncllaw.com August 21, 2023
Emeryville City Clerk
1333 Park Avenue
Emeryville, CA 94608
RE: Request for Endorsed Copy Verifying Administrative Claim Received - Burris, Nisenbaum, Curry & Lacy, LLP
Our client: Taurice Williams
Date of Incident: May 7, 2023
Dear Records Clerk,
This is to inform you that the Burris, Nisenbaum, Curry & Lacy, LLP represents Taurice Williams.
We have attached a copy of a completed claim form, which includes a detailed addendum. We have sent you two copies of the form. We request that you send us back one endorsed copy verifying the time and date that our claim was received. We have enclosed a self-addressed stamped envelope for your convenience. If you have any questions, please, contact us immediately.
Regards,
Chike Odiwe
Burris, Nisenbaum, Curry & Lacy, LLP
Burris, Nisenbaum, Curry & Lacy, LLP
7677 Oakport Street Suite 1120 Oakland, Ca. 94621(510)839-5200 www.bncllaw.com ATTACHMENT "A - ASSAULT AND BATTERY CLAIM"
Claimant objects to your Claim Form because it requires information which constitutes an invasion of the Claimant's privacy. Moreover, the information is not required to be provided by the Claimant under California Government Code Section 910. For example, California Government Code Section 910 does not require that the Claimants provide their home and work numbers, driver's license number, date of birth, auto insurance name and policy number, a diagram of the location of the incident, any statements by the Claimants as to their reasons "for believing the City is liable for your damages, "or a description" of all damages which you believe you have incurred as a result of the incident." For the purposes of this document "CLAIMANT" means the individual claimant, claimants plural, and all plaintiffs and parties in interest represented by the BURRIS, NISENBAUM, CURRY & LACY, LLP. Therefore, Claimant submits the following information in support of his/her Claim pursuant to Government Code Section 910:
CLAIMANT NAME: Taurice Williams
ADDRESS TO WHICH ALL NOTICES ARE TO BE SENT: BURRIS, NISENBAUM, CURRY & LACY, LLP, Airport Corporate Centre, 7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1120, Oakland, CA 94621
CLAIMANT TELEPHONE NUMBER: C/O BURRIS, NISENBAUM, CURRY & LACY, LLP (510) 839-5200
PLEASE NOTE: COUNSEL REPRESENTS CLAIMANT AND ALL CONTACT SHOULD BE MADE WITH HIS ATTORNEY ONLY.
DATE AND TIME OF INCIDENT: May 7, 2023
LOCATION OF INCIDENT: Emeryville, CA.
THE FOLLOWING PROVIDES A GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE INDEBTEDNESS,
OBLIGATION, INJURY, DAMAGES OR LOSS INCURRED SO FAR AS IT MAY BE KNOWN AT THE TIME OF PRESENTATION OF THE CLAIM" AND "THE NAME OR
NAMES OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEE OR EMPLOYEES CAUSING THE INJURY, DAMAGES, OR LOSS, IF KNOWN: [Per Government Code Section 910]. For the purposes of this claim, "AGENCY" is defined by and refers to the municipal, county, or state entity, which governs the City of Emeryville Police Department.
DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENT:
On May 7, 2023, Claimant, Taurice Williams ("Williams") was heading towards CARE campus/shelter, a temporary homeless center that helps lower income people find work and housing accommodations. Williams stopped at a gas station on his way to the shelter. When Williams was at the gas station, he noticed an Emeryville Police officer make a U-turn and pull up behind him.
1 Burris, Nisenbaum, Curry & Lacy, LLP
7677 Oakport Street Suite 1120 Oakland, Ca. 94621 (510)839-5200 www.bncllaw.com Williams rolled down his driver's side window for the officer to approach. At this point Williams had his hands up. The officer said "I'm pulling you over because you have a broken taillight." Williams knew he had broken lights as well as a curfew with the CARE program, hence, why he pulled into the gas station. The officer asked Williams for his information. Out of an abundance of caution, Williams told the officer that he had to reach into his pocket to provide the officer with his identification. Williams advised the officer that the car was his. The officer took Williams' identification to his patrol car to run his information. As the initial officer ran Williams' information, and second officer approached Williams' car from the passenger side.
When Williams got his identification back from the initial officer he gave the second officer his identification.
Once the officers ran Williams' information, the officers removed Williams from his car and placed him in the back of a patrol car. Williams asked the officers why he was being arrested.
Williams told the officers that he was not on probation or parole.
Once Williams was in the back of the patrol car, the officers went inside of Williams car to search it. The officers, without legal cause, went as far as opening a duffle bag that was in the back seat of the car. The officers found a firearm inside the duffle bag. The officers took Williams ID and failed to return it to him. The officers threw Williams ID into Williams' car and Williams' car was then impound with his identification still inside the car.
The officers charged Williams with possession of firearm. Williams was in jail for a week and a half. During that period, Williams made three Court appearances. During the final Court appearance Williams' charges were dropped on the basis that the officers did not have probable cause to search Williams' car.
Williams worked as a Janitor for Health Services Group since 2022. Because of the incident, Williams lost his job and his car as he was not able to afford the accrued fees to retrieve his car from the impound lot on top of the difficulties, he had in replacing his lost Identification card.
DESCRIPTION OF CLAIM:
Claimant alleges that the conduct of individual employees, agents, and/or servants of AGENCY constitute State statutory violations, which might include but are not limited to assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, negligence, negligent hiring, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Claimant alleges those individual employees, agents and/or servants of AGENCY are responsible for Claimant's injuries, and acts and/or omissions committed within the course or scope of employment under the theory of respondeat superior. Respondeat superior liability includes but is not limited to, negligent training, supervision, control and/or discipline.
Individual employees, agents, and/or servants of the AGENCY, include but are not limited to, the chief of police, sheriff, or an individual of comparable title, in charge of law enforcement for AGENCY, and DOES 1-100, and/or each of them, individually and/or while acting in concert with one another.
2 Burris, Nisenbaum, Curry & Lacy, LLP
7677 Oakport Street Suite 1120 Oakland, Ca. 94621 (510)839-5200 www.bncllaw.com Claimant alleges the appropriate offenses listed below.
Claimant alleges that assault included, but was not limited to, conduct causing claimant to reasonably fear a harmful offensive touching upon claimant's person.
Claimant alleges that battery included, but was not limited to, conduct resulting in a harmful offensive touching upon claimant's person in a manner foreseeable likely to cause injury.
Claimant alleges that false imprisonment included, but was not limited to, acts or omissions causing claimant to be confined or restricted to an area without means of escape while claimant was aware of the confinement.
Claimant alleges that false arrest included, but not limited to, acts that placed claimant under wrongful arrest without a warrant, actually caused claimant harm and the arresting person(s) were a substantial factor in causing that harm.
Claimant alleges that negligence included, but was not limited to, breach of duty upon failing to exercise due care by placing claimant at risk of serious physical injury, detention and/or arrest.
Claimant alleges that negligent hiring included, but was not limited to, breach of duty upon failing to exercise due care by hiring individuals likely to cause physical injury to citizens while acting under color of law in an official capacity.
Claimant alleges that negligent infliction of emotional distress included, but was not limited to, the failure to use reasonable care to avoid causing emotional distress to another individual. The negligent conduct resulted in Claimant's physical injuries.
Claimant alleges that intentional infliction of emotional distress included, but was not limited to, outrageous acts or omissions with the intent to causing emotional distress to another individual.
The intentional conduct resulted in Claimant's physical injuries.
Claimant alleges violation of California Civil Code Section 52.1, for actions by law enforcement personnel, whether or not acting under color of law, which interfere by threats, intimidation, or coercion, or attempts to interfere by threats, intimidation, or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any individual or individuals of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state.
Claimant alleges that malicious prosecution included, but was not limited to, acts or omissions causing claimant to be falsely arrested and criminally charged without probable cause.
Claimant will allege other causes of action subject to continuing discovery.
DESCRIBE INJURY OR DAMAGE:
Claimant has, or may have in the future, claims for general damages, including, but not limited to, claims for pain, suffering and emotional distress in amounts to be determined according to proof.
3 Burris, Nisenbaum, Curry & Lacy, LILP
7677 Oakport Street Suite 1120 Oakland, Ca. 94621 (510)839-5200 www.bncllaw.com Claimant may have and/or may continue to have in the future, claims for special damages, ncluding, but not limited t
ace, damate to educational airs or damage and related and orses, er steal dames it amounts to be determined according to proof.
Claimant may have, and/or may continue to have in the future, damages for permanent mental injuries, permanent mental scarring and/or other psychological disabilities in an amount according to proof.
NAME OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE(S) BELIEVED TO HAVE CAUSED INJURY OR DAMAGE:
City of Emeryville Police Department Officers
DEMAND FOR PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE:
Claimant does hereby demand that AGENCY including, but not limited to, the appropriate city or county law enforcement agency, its employees, servants and/or attorneys, maintain and preserve all evidence, documents and tangible materials which relate in any manner whatsoever to the subject matter of this Claim, including until the completion of any and all civil and/or criminal litigation arising from the events which are the subject matter of this Claim. This demand for preservation of evidence includes, but is not limited to, a demand that all public safety entities preserve all tapes, logs and/or other tangible materials of any kind until the completion of any and all civil and criminal litigation arising from the subject matter of this claim.
AMOUNT OF CLAIM:
This claim is in excess of $25,000. Jurisdiction is designated as "unlimited" and jurisdiction would be in the United States District Court and/or Superior Court of the State of California.
DATED: August 21, 2023
Regards,
K. Chike Odiwe
Burris, Nisenbaum, Curry & Lacy, LLP
4 Burris, Nisenbaum, Curry & Lacy, LLP
7677 Oakport Street Suite 1120 Oakland, Ca. 94621 (510)839-5200 www.bncllaw.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
(Williams v. City of Emeryville)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA:
I am a citizen of the United States and employed in the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action; My business address is 7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1120, Oakland, California 94621. On the date below, I served on the named parties and / or counsel of record: August 21, 2023
Emeryville City Clerk City on Notice
1333 Park Avenue
Emeryville, CA 94608
The following documents in the manner checked below:
TWO COPIES OF ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIM AND COVER LETTER
(VIA MAIL - CCP §§ 1013(a), 2015.5) By placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope(s), addressed as above, and placing each for collection and mailing on that date following ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with my firm's business practice of collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the U.S. Postal Service at Oakland, California, with postage thereon fully prepaid, that same day in the ordinary course of business.
• (VIA PERSONAL DELIVERY - CCP §§ 1011, 2015.5) By placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope(s), addressed as above, and causing each envelope(s) to be hand delivered on that day by. → in the ordinary course of my firm's business practice.
• (VIA E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION - CCP §§ 1013(e), 2015.5, CRC 2008) Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by e- mail or electronic transmission, I caused the document to be sent to the persons at the e- mail address(es) or the facsimile number listed above. I am readily familiar with my firm's business practice of collection and processing of correspondence via facsimile transmission(s) and any such correspondence would be transmitted in the ordinary course of business. The facsimile transmission(s) was reported as complete and without error, and a copy of the transmission report is attached.
• (VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL/ COURIER - CCP §S 1013(c), 2015.5) By placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope(s), addressed as above, and placing each for collection by overnight mail service or overnight courier service. I am familiar with my firm's business practice of collection and processing of correspondence for overnight mail or overnight courier service, and my correspondence placed for collection for overnight delivery would, in the ordinary course of business, be delivered to an 6 Burris, Nisenbaum, Curry & Lacy, LLP
7677 Oakport Street Suite 1120 Oakland, Ca. 94621 (510)839-5200 www.bncllaw.com authorized courier or driver authorized by the overnight mail carrier to receive documents, with delivery fees paid or provided for, that same day, for delivery on the following business day.
I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. Executed on August 21, 2023 in Oakland, California.
X
Clerk - Law Offices of John Burris
Jarrett Griffith