Case3:12-cv-05267-WHA Document9 Filed11/27/12 Page1 of 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Jeffery M. Hubins [State Bar No. 220657] [email protected] William F. Schauman [State Bar No. 210661] [email protected] SCHAUMAN & HUBINS 5700 Stoneridge Mall Road, Suite 130 Pleasanton, California 94588 Tel. (925) 846-5400 Fax (925) 846-5402 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF BRIAN LANCASTER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN LANCASTER, Plaintiff, vs.

Case No. CV 12-5267 WHA FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (1) (2) (3) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; NEGLIGENCE; NEGLIGENT HIRING, RETENTION and SUPERVISION; DEFAMATION; CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION 42 U.S.C. 1983; CAL. CIVIL CODE 52.1; ABUSE OF PROCESS; MALICIOUS PROSECUTION; FALSE ARREST / FALSE IMPRISONMENT; PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF PRIVATE FACTS

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (10) CITY OF PLEASANTON; OFFICER TIM MARTENS; ALAMEDA COUNTY; DEPUTY SHERIFF RYAN SILCOCKS; LESLEY REGINA; LISA SECORD; LOUIS SECORD (aka TREY); and, DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants.

(4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Plaintiff, BRIAN LANCASTER, files this First Amended Complaint against all Defendants, and each of them, demands a jury trial of all facts, issues, and causes of action, and alleges as follows:

-1FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case3:12-cv-05267-WHA Document9 Filed11/27/12 Page2 of 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1.

PARTIES At all material times relevant to this complaint, Plaintiff BRIAN LANCASTER

(PLAINTIFF) is and was a California resident, residing in the City of Pleasanton, California, County of Alameda. PLAINTIFF is a citizen of the State of California. 2. Plaintiff is informed and believes that at all times herein mentioned Defendant

CITY OF PLEASANTON (PLEASANTON) is a municipal corporation located in the State of California and the public employer of Defendant Officer TIM MARTENS. 3. At all material times relevant to this complaint, Defendant Officer TIM

MARTENS (MARTENS) was duly appointed and acting officer of the police department of the City of Pleasanton, acting under color of law, color of statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs, and usages of the State of California and or City of Pleasanton. 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes that at all times herein mentioned Defendant

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA (ALAMEDA) is a municipal corporation located in the State of California and the public employer of Defendant Officer RYAN SILCOCKS. 5. At all material times relevant to this complaint, Defendant Deputy Sheriff RYAN

SLCOCKS (SILCOCKS) was duly appointed and acting officer of the Alameda County Sheriffs Department, acting under color of law, color of statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs, and usages of the State of California and or County of Alameda. 6. At all material times relevant to this complaint, Defendant LESLEY ANNE

REGINA (REGINA) is and was a California resident, residing in the State of California. REGINA is and has been a licensed attorney in the State of California since 2000, California State Bar Number 209541, with a law practice under the name of Law Office of Lesley Regina, operating in Contra Costa County, State of California. 7. At all material times relevant to this complaint, Defendant LISA SECORD

(LISA) is and was a Washington state resident, residing in the State of Washington. LISA is a citizen of the State of Washington. 8. At all material times relevant to this complaint, Defendant LOUIS SECORD

(TREY) is and was a Washington state resident, residing in the State of Washington. TREY is

-2FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case3:12-cv-05267-WHA Document9 Filed11/27/12 Page3 of 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

a citizen of the State of Washington. LOUIS TREY SECORD is also referred to and uses the name of TREY SECORD. 9. Defendants TREY and LISA are husband and wife and PLAINTIFF is informed

and believes that they are married under the laws of the State of Washington. 10. The true names and capacities of the defendants sued as DOES 1 through 10,

inclusive, whether individual, private company, public entity, corporate, associate, agents, or otherwise, are unknown to PLAINTIFF as the real names are not ascertainable or known to PLAINTIFF because the police reports and other information have not yet been disclosed. DOES defendants are sued under fictitious names under CCP 474 and Anderson v. Allstate Ins. Co. (9th Cir. 1980) 630 F.2d 677). PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that each of the DOE defendants were responsible in some way for the occurrences and injuries alleged in this complaint, acted as an agent or employee of the other defendants and ratified the conduct of other defendants. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 11. This court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332 in that it is a civil

action between the citizens of different states in which the matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of costs and interest, $75,000.00. 12. This court also has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 as the action

arises under the fourth, fifth, and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution, and involves a federal question under 28 U.S.C. 1983. FACTS 13. PLAINTIFF and LISA were a previously married couple that later divorced. In

2008 PLAINTIFF and LISA started what proved to be an epic custody battle, with LISA resorting to every possible tactic to obtain favor of the courts, thereby being granted custody. LISA filed restraining order one after another with false declarations in effort to mislead the court into improperly granting stay-away orders. LISA recruited PLAINTIFFS ex-girlfriend to assist in her efforts by convincing PLAINTIFFS ex-girlfriend into filing for restraining orders also based false declarations. LISA recruited attorney REGINA to obtain confidential material

-3FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case3:12-cv-05267-WHA Document9 Filed11/27/12 Page4 of 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

police material for the purpose of initiating legal proceedings and police investigations against PLAINTIFF. TREY, LISAS husband, recruited his friend, MARTENS, to arrest PLAINTIFF by improperly planting false evidence on PLAINTIFF. SILCOCKS and MARTENS used their positions as law enforcement officers to unlawfully obtain and disclose confidential information about PLAINTIFF to LISA, REGINA and TREY. TREY, LISA and REGINA knowingly and unlawfully obtained receipt of confidential information about PLAINTIFF with the intent to use such information in initiating legal proceedings against PLAINTIFF. Each conspired with another to in an effort to cause PLAINTIFF harm by violating his rights and privacy. 14. LISA lied to the courts in California and Washington to gain advantage in her

custody dispute with PLAINTIFF, not out of the love and affection a mother should have for her children, but out of the festering hate she possesses towards her ex-husband, PLAINTIFF. LISA fraudulently informed the family law courts that PLAINTIFF was a grave threat to her and their children. 15. LISA falsely declared under penalty of perjury that PLAINTIFF threatened to kill

her and then commit suicide. She also declared that PLAINTIFF had plans to have his brother kidnap their children following PLAINTIFFS supposed murder-suicide plan. LISA falsely accused PLAINTIFF of rape in a public forum. The false statements made by LISA about PLAINTIFF caused harm and injury to PLAINTIFFS reputation. 16. LISA is married to Defendant TREY SECORD. TREY and LISA are friends

with Defendant TIM MARTENS. Defendant MARTENS is a sworn police officer in the City of Pleasanton. 17. TREY operates an online business selling remote controlled cars. PLAINTIFF is

informed and believes that Defendant MARTENS and TREY met through the online business, and that they have email and telephone communications with each other. 18. LISA and defendant LESLEY REGINA know each other and are friends.

REGINA is an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California, with an office at 18 Crow Canyon Court, Suite 340, San Ramon, California 94583.

-4FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case3:12-cv-05267-WHA Document9 Filed11/27/12 Page5 of 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

19.

Defendant RYAN SILCOCKS is a sworn Alameda County Deputy Sheriff.

SILCOCKS and REGINA were involved in a dating relationship with each other. REGINA asked SILCOCKS to obtain confidential, private background information regarding PLAINTIFF BRIAN LANCASTER, and provide that information to her for her personal use. On January 15, 17, and February 21, 2012, SILCOCKS used the Alameda County Sheriffs database to access otherwise confidential information regarding PLAINTIFF, including information from the California Department of Motor Vehicles, Clets, NCIC and CORPUS. 20. On January 17, 2012, SILCOCKS sent an email to [email protected] asking

requesting a search for weapons registered to Brian Lancaster. In the January 17 email SILCOCKS states that PLAINTIFF was arrested on January 16, 2012, and that an AK-47 magazine was found during the search. SILCOCKS continues stating that PLAINTIFF has multiple domestic violence restraining orders, and is a known crystal methamphetamine addict. SILCOCKS stated in the email that two females are currently in danger. SILCOCKS had never before met PLAINTIFF nor had PLAINTIFF ever been arrested or convicted for drug use or possession. SILCOCKS made the representations about PLAINTIFF knowing they were false. Making such representations about PLAINTIFF were defamatory and caused damage to PLAINTIFFS reputation. 21. On January 23, 2012, SILCOCKS forwarded the email string between him and

[email protected] to REGINA. The email string he forwarded to REGINA contained confidential information form the California Department of Motor Vehicles, Clets, NCIC and CORPUS pertaining to PLAINTIFF. In his email to REGINA he states, YOU DIDNT GET THIS FROM ME AND IF YOU FORWARD CUT AND PASTE INTO A NEW EMAIL. THIS IS ALL CONFIDENTIAL INFO. SILCOCKS asked that Regina keep the information about PLAINTIFF confidential because he knew he was not authorized to obtain, use or provide the information about PLAINTIFF to others. 22. On January 23, 2012, REGINA forwarded the confidential information she

unlawfully obtained from SILCOCKS to another person. REGINA knew that possessing and circulating the information she obtained from SILCOCKS was unlawful, but did so despite her

-5FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case3:12-cv-05267-WHA Document9 Filed11/27/12 Page6 of 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

knowledge and oath as an officer of the court. She stated in her email, Please keep confidential. REGINA mistakenly forgot to delete SILCOCKSS name form the email string, thereby disclosing his involvement. REGINA and SILCOCKS were acting in concert to obtain, disclose and use the confidential information they obtained on PLAINTIFF without proper authorization. They further knew their activities were unlawful but acted in such an unlawful manner despite their knowledge. 23. On February 21, 2012 SILCOCKS again accessed the County database searching

for records pertaining to PLAINTIFF, including PLAINTIFFS DMV drivers license status. SILCOCKS then sent a cell phone text message about PLAINTIFFS drivers license status to REGINA. 24. REGINA sent the information she obtained from SILCOCKS to her friend LISA.

LISA used the information she obtained from REGINA to obtain an advantage in her custody dispute by filing the information by way of declaration and testimony with the court, therefore making the information available to the world. 25. SILCOCKS and REGINA have both been accused of violating the California

Penal Code and committing misdemeanor crimes. Each were charged by the district attorneys office and were ordered to be booked by the judge presiding over the criminal cases. REGINA was charged with violating Penal Code 13304, a misdemeanor, for receipt and possession of record of unauthorized person. SILCOCKS was charged by the district attorneys office for violating 502(c), knowingly and unlawfully accessing data from county computers; violating section 13302 of the penal code by the unauthorized furnishing of a local criminal record to another unauthorized person; and, violating the California Vehicle Code 1808.45 by willfully making an unauthorized disclosure of DMV information to other unauthorized people. 26. ALAMEDA employs SILCOCKS. PLAINTIFF made complaints with

ALAMEDA about SILCOCKS. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that SILCOCKS was investigated by ALAMEDA for researching confidential information about PLAINTIFF. ALAMEDA did nothing to discipline SILCOCKS even after its investigation. PLAINTIFF alleges that ALAMEDA failed to conduct a thorough investigation and failed to properly

-6FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case3:12-cv-05267-WHA Document9 Filed11/27/12 Page7 of 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

supervise SILCOCKS even after complaints were made about SILCOCKS. SILCOCKS unlawfully accessed PLAINTIFFS records and disseminated those records to prohibited people following the complaint and investigation. ALAMEDA retained SILCOCKS following PLAINTIFFS and other peoples complaints, thereby permitting SILCOCKS to continue to cause harm to PLAINTIFF on subsequent occasions. ALAMEDA hired and retained SILCOCKS it knew or should have known that SILCOCKS was unfit for hire and retention. 27. Other non-party individuals made and filed citizen complaints with ALAMEDA

alleging that SILCOCKS was violating ALAMEDAS rules of conduct. ALAMEDA failed to properly investigate those complaints and failed to take proper disciplinary actions against SILCOCKS. ALAMEDA negligently retained SILCOCKS even after receiving complaints about SILCOCKS. 28. REGINA, LISA and SILCOCKS made contact with a person named Gabrielle

Stevens. Ms. Stevens and PLAINTIFF had a dating relationship following PLAINTIFF and LISAS separation. LISA, REGINA and SILCOCKS convinced Ms. Stevens to file two restraining orders against PLAINTIFF, one in December 2011 and one in March 2012. Neither was granted, although a temporary order was granted until the merits of the permanent injunction could be heard. The permanent injunction was ultimately denied. LISA falsely stated to Ms. Stevens that PLAINTIFF physically abused LISA, that he threatened to kill LISA, that Ms. Stevens should fear for her own life as PLAINTIFF would kill her, and that PLAINTIFF likely placed cameras throughout Ms. Stevens house. 29. LISA placed false information on internet blogs accusing PLAINTIFF using

illegal drug use, methamphetamine use, and child molestation and abuse. LISA telephoned women PLAINTIFF was dating and informed them that he was physically abusive towards women, possessed guns unlawfully, and used illegal drugs. LISA also informed women PLAINTIFF was dating that they should be concerned for their and their childrens safety as PLAINTIFF was a dangerous person. LISA made these false accusations about PLAINTIFF in an effort to interfere with PLAINTIFFS personal intimate relationships with other women.

-7FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case3:12-cv-05267-WHA Document9 Filed11/27/12 Page8 of 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

30.

LISA, SILCOCKS and REGINA worked in concert to convince Ms. Stevens to

file restraining orders against PLAINTIFF. LISA, SILCOCKS and REGINA convinced Ms. Stevens to sign declarations then changed the court papers without Ms. Stevenss knowledge after she had signed the court papers. 31. PLAINTIFF met with attorney REGINA in the summer of 2011 at her San

Ramon office for the purpose of discussing legal issues and obtaining legal consultation in regard to LISA placing a GPS tracking device on PLAINTIFFS vehicle without his consent. REGINA provided PLAINTIFF with legal advice and consult. During that meeting, PLAINTIFF disclosed confidential information to REGINA. By way of their meeting and consultation, REGINA was engaged as PLAINTIFFS attorney. REGINA owed PLAINTIFF a duty of loyalty and has an obligation not to act against his interest. REGINA acted as PLAINTIFFS attorney and PLAINTIFF was REGINAS client. 32. REGINA violated her professional obligations as an attorney by representing an

adverse party against PLAINTIFFS interest and by violating the duty of loyalty to PLAINTIFF. REGINA represented Ms. Stevens in her efforts to obtain a restraining order on Ms. Stevenss behalf against PLAINTIFF in December 2011 and again on March 2012. REGINA represented and assisted Ms. Stevens from December 2011 through March 2012, after she represented PLAINTIFF. REGINA prepared and filed declarations for Ms. Stevens. REGINA encouraged LISA, SILCOCKS and Ms. Stevens to take affirmative actions against PLAINTIFFS interest, including obtaining their statements in an effort to initiate an investigation against PLAINTIFF with the Department of Justice. REGINA also sent SILCOCKS, LISA and Ms. Stevens proposed talking points and answers to various questions that might be asked by the Department of Justice. REGINA also encouraged Ms. Stevens to move forward with a restraining order against PLAINTIFF. PLAINTIFF was harmed and incurred costs as a result of REGINAS actions. 33. On or around January 18, 2012 REGINA requested the California Department of

Justice initiate an investigation and search of PLAINTIFFS house. REGINA sent to the Department of Justice copies of the restraining order she obtain against PLAINTIFF on behalf of

-8FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case3:12-cv-05267-WHA Document9 Filed11/27/12 Page9 of 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Ms. Stevens. REGINA also informed the Department of Justice that PLAINTIFF was arrested on January 17, 2012 from confidential information she improperly obtained from MARTENS, the SECORDS and SILCOCKS. REGINA knowingly and unlawfully obtained and disclosed PLAINTIFFS arrest information. REGINA falsely informed the Department of Justice that PLAINTIFF possessed firearms and ammunition in violation of court order. REGINA knew that PLAINTIFF did not possess the firearms and ammunition she told the Department of Justice PLAINTIFF had. REGINA knowingly and intentionally provided false and or misleading information to the Department of Justice. REGINA worked with the Pleasanton Police Department in an effort to have PLAINTIFFS house searched. She was told to contact the Pleasanton Police Department 34. The Department of Justice initiated an investigation into PLAINTIFF based upon

the false, misleading and improper information provided to it by REGINA. The Department of Justice used the information provided to it by REGINA to obtain a search warrant of PLAINTIFFS house, vehicle and computer. The Department of Justice conducted its search. 35. REGINA unlawfully obtained the confidential information only available for law

enforcement purposes to cause damage and harm to PLAINTIFF. REGINA was not permitted to maintain or obtain possession of the documents given to her by MARTENS or SILCOCKS. She used her personal relationship with officers and the guise of her professional license to obtain information about PLAINTIFF that she knowingly used to institute legal action against him and to his detriment. 36. Louis TREY Secord maintains a website and blog having to do with remote

control cars. Officer Tim Martens (MARTENS) is a sworn officer employed with the Pleasanton Police Department. Through the website, MARTENS and TREY became friends. 37. MARTENS and TREY emailed each other about PLAINTIFF. TREY and

MARTENS communicated with one another about TREY, LISA, REGINA, and SILCOCKS efforts to have PLAINTIFF falsely arrested to gain advantage in the child custody dispute between LISA and PLAINTIFF and in an act of revenge against PLAINTIFF. MARTENS was informed that LISA and PLAINTIFF had a custody hearing approaching in the family law

-9FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case3:12-cv-05267-WHA Document9 Filed11/27/12 Page10 of 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

courts. MARTENS was asked by LISA, SILCOCKS, TREY and REGINA to arrest PLAINTIFF. 38. MARTENS used his position as a law enforcement officer to conduct

unauthorized research and obtain confidential information about PLAINTIFF, even though MARTENS was not conducting official police business. MARTENS and TREY emailed each other the confidential and unlawfully obtained and possessed information about PLAINTIFF. On January 16, 2012, MARTENS used his position as a law enforcement officer to effectuate a traffic stop against PLAINTIFF. 39. Initially MARTENS falsely accused PLAINTIFF of unlawfully possessing illegal

drugs and drug paraphernalia. MARTENS knowingly filed a false police report and caused PLAINTIFF to be falsely arrested based on the false evidence. PLAINTIFF was booked and charged with the crimes MARTENS falsely accused PLAINTIFF of committing. As a result, PLAINTIFF was jailed in Santa Rita jail for the crimes he was falsely accused of committing by MARTENS. LISA, SILCOCKS and REGINA also participated in the arrest of PLAINTIFF by providing false information to MARTENS in effort to have MARTENS arrest PLAINTIFF. In fact, on or about January 23, 2012, LISA and/or TREY requested that MARTENS file a supplemental/amendment to the initial arrest report stating that he found ammunition in PLAINTIFFs vehicle at the time of PLAINTIFFs January 16, 2012 arrest to give the Department of Justice probable cause to search PLAINTIFFs home for weapons. 40. MARTENS violated city, state and federal law and Pleasanton Police Department

policies, rules and regulations by falsely arresting PLAINTIFF, and by falsely planting evidence. MARTENS unlawfully detained PLAINTIFF and conducted a search of PLAINTIFF and his vehicle and in violation of state and federal law and police procedure and practices. MARTENS caused PLAINTIFF to be arrested and jailed against his will, caused PLAINTIFF to have an arrest record, and caused criminal charges to be filed against PLAINTIFF based upon the false evidence placed on PLAINTIFFS person and car. MARTENS caused the Office of District Attorney to file charges against PLAINTIFF for unlawful drug possession. Ultimately, all criminal charges arising from the arrest made by TIM MARTENS against PLAINTIFF were

- 10 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case3:12-cv-05267-WHA Document9 Filed11/27/12 Page11 of 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

dismissed by the District Attorney. PLAINTIFF was forced to incur embarrassment, emotional distress, and anxiety as a result of MARTENS, LISA, SILCOCKS and REGINAS actions. Further, PLAINTIFF incurred attorney fees in effort to fight the charges based on the false information each person provided. 41. PLAINTIFF previously purchased and owned a number of firearms. Due to the

temporary restraining order placed against him by Ms. Stevens, PLAINTIFF was prohibited from having possession of the firearms. LISA falsely reported to the police that PLAINTIFF possessed several firearms in violation of court order. LISA knew that PLAINTIFF did not possess the firearms, yet she informed the police he did despite the truth. LISA knew that PLAINTIFF did not possess the firearms otherwise prohibited by court order because she herself had possession of them. Likewise, REGINA, MARTENS, and SILCOCKS also knew that PLAINTIFF did not possess firearms he was forbidden possessing based on conversations defendants had with one another. 42. LISA told and informed REGINA that LISA possessed the firearms that belonged

to PLAINTIFF. LISA and REGINA attempted to have PLEASANTON obtain a search warrant based on the false information of PLAINTIFF possessing firearms. LISA and REGINA knowingly provided false information to the Department of Justice and Pleasanton Police Department that PLAINTIFF possessed several firearms in violation of court order and in effort to obtain a search warrant against PLAINTIFFS residence and to have PLAINTIFF arrested. PLEASANTON knew that PLAINTIFF did not possess the firearms, yet they knowingly and intentionally provided false information to the Department of Justice in order to obtain a search warrant. PLAINTIFF was arrested and did have his residence searched based on the false reporting by LISA and REGINA. REGINA and LISA reported PLAINTIFF as having the firearms knowing LISA possessed them instead of PLAINTIFF. REGINA and LISA made the false reporting to cause harm to PLAINTIFF, for personal gain, and not for lawful reasons. 43. MARTENS caused PLAINTIFF harm by knowingly and intentionally making

false arrest without probable cause, planting evidence, falsifying police reports, unlawfully obtaining and disclosing PLAINTIFFS personal and confidential information, initiating criminal

- 11 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case3:12-cv-05267-WHA Document9 Filed11/27/12 Page12 of 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

charges with the District Attorneys Office, and aiding and conspiring with others to break the law in effort to cause harm and violate PLAINTIFFS rights and privacy. 44. LISA caused PLAINTIFF harm by knowingly and intentionally filing false

information with the courts and various law enforcement agencies and personnel; obtaining, possessing and disseminating personal and confidential information pertaining to PLAINTIFF, soliciting law enforcement officers and agencies to violate PLAINTIFFS rights and privacy, violating PLAINTIFFS rights to privacy in his whereabouts by placing a GPS tracking device onto PLAINTIFFS property, by posting in a public forum false and defamatory information about PLAINTIFF, by causing legal proceedings and law enforcement actions to be initiated against PLAINTIFF based on information known by LISA to be false, intentionally interfering with PLAINTIFFS personal, family and intimate relationships with others, and aiding and conspiring with others to break the law in effort to cause harm and violate PLAINTIFFS rights and privacy. 45. REGINA caused PLAINTIFF harm by knowingly and intentionally filing false

information with the courts and various law enforcement agencies and personnel; obtaining, possessing and disseminating personal and confidential information pertaining to PLAINTIFF, soliciting law enforcement officers and agencies to violate PLAINTIFFS rights and privacy, by causing legal proceedings and law enforcement actions to be initiated against PLAINTIFF based on information known by REGINA to be false, intentionally interfering with PLAINTIFFS personal, family and intimate relationships with others, and aiding and conspiring with others to break the law in effort to cause harm and violate PLAINTIFFS rights and privacy. 46. TREY caused PLAINTIFF harm by knowingly and intentionally filing false

information with the courts and various law enforcement agencies and personnel; obtaining, possessing and disseminating personal and confidential information pertaining to PLAINTIFF, soliciting law enforcement officers and agencies to violate PLAINTIFFS rights and privacy, by causing legal proceedings and law enforcement actions to be initiated against PLAINTIFF based on information known by TREY to be false, intentionally interfering with PLAINTIFFS

- 12 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case3:12-cv-05267-WHA Document9 Filed11/27/12 Page13 of 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

personal, family and intimate relationships with others, and aiding and conspiring with others to break the law in effort to cause harm and violate PLAINTIFFS rights and privacy. 47. SILCOCKS caused PLAINTIFF harm by obtaining, possessing and disseminating

personal and confidential information pertaining to PLAINTIFF, soliciting law enforcement officers and agencies to violate PLAINTIFFS rights and privacy, by causing legal proceedings and law enforcement actions to be initiated against PLAINTIFF based on information known by SILCOCKS to be false, intentionally interfering with PLAINTIFFS personal, family and intimate relationships with others, and aiding and conspiring with others to break the law in effort to cause harm and violate PLAINTIFFS rights and privacy. 48. PLEASANTON and ALAMEDA, the municipal entities employing each

defendant sworn officer, knew or should have known its respective officer employee was acting in violation of the law. PLAINTIFF filed complaints with PLEASANTON and ALAMEDA asking each to conduct an investigation, yet they refused or conducted a sham investigation. 49. PLEASANTON failed to investigate the complaints here made by PLAINTIFF

against MARTENS, failed to discipline MARTENS in light of the allegations and complaints, and retained MARTENS in spite previous complaints made by others. 50. ALAMEDA failed to investigate the complaints here made by PLAINTIFF

against SILCOCKS, failed to discipline SILCOCKS in light of the allegations and complaints, and retained SILCOCKS in spite previous complaints made by others. 51. Prior to committing the acts against PLAINTIFF as alleged here, other citizen

complaints were made with the COUNTY of ALAMEDA against SILCOCKS similar to those types of allegations made here, involving dishonesty and abuse of power and authority. Despite the other citizens complaints made against SILCOCKS, ALAMEDA hired retained and kept SILCOCKS employed, failed to investigate, discipline and properly supervise SILCOCKS. 52. Prior to committing the acts against PLAINTIFF as alleged here, other citizen

complaints were made with the CITY OF PLEASANTON against MARTENS similar to those types of allegations made here, involving dishonesty and abuse of power and authority. Despite the other citizens complaints made against MARTENS, CITY OF PLEASANTON hired

- 13 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case3:12-cv-05267-WHA Document9 Filed11/27/12 Page14 of 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

retained and kept MARTENS employed, failed to investigate, discipline and properly supervise MARTENS. 53. REGINA repeatedly asked ALAMEDA COUNTY for assistance with having

PLEASANTON pursue a search warrant from the Department of Justice to search PLAINTIFFS house based on the false police report completed by TIM MARTENS. ALAMEDA instructed REGINA to call the Pleasanton Police Department and use them to obtain the search warrant. 54. REGINA, LESLEY and SILCOCKS have each been arrested and are being

criminally charged by the various District Attorneys Offices in their respective jurisdictions with criminal charges for their actions against PLAINTIFF. 55. PLAINTIFF has been harmed, injured and will continue to suffer harm and injury

by the actions or inactions of each and every one of defendants actions, including damages to PLAINTIFFS reputation, loss of custody of PLAINTIFFS children, economic loss, loss of relationships with others, and emotional pain, distress, suffering, angst and anxiety. 56. PLAINTIFF has filed all the necessary filings and complaints required to exhaust

any and all administrative remedies as otherwise required by law. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 57. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference in this cause of action paragraphs 1

through 56 inclusive as though fully set forth herein. 58. PLAINTIFF complains and alleges this cause of action against Defendants TREY

SECORD, LISA SECORD, and LESLEY REGINA. 59. Defendants conduct in doing the acts and or omissions as set forth above acted in

a manner that is outrageous. 60. Defendants, conduct in committing the outrageous acts or omissions, did so

intentionally or in reckless disregard of the probability of causing PLAINTIFF emotional distress.

- 14 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case3:12-cv-05267-WHA Document9 Filed11/27/12 Page15 of 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

61.

As a result of the Defendants conduct, acts or omissions, PLAINTIFF suffered

severe or extreme emotional distress as the actual and proximate cause of Defendants outrageous conduct. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Negligence 62. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference in this cause of action paragraphs 1

through 61 inclusive as though fully set forth herein. 63. PLAINTIFF complains and alleges this cause of action against each and every

Defendant above. 64. Defendants owed a legal duty of care to PLAINTIFF. Defendants breached their

legal duty by committing the acts and or omissions in carrying out the conduct as set forth above. 65. In Committing the acts or omissions described above, the Defendants were the

legal and proximate cause of PLAINTIFFS injuries. 66. PLAINTIFF suffered injuries as legally and proximately caused by Defendants

conduct, action or inaction. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Negligent Hiring, Retention and Supervision 67. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference in this cause of action paragraphs 1

through 66 inclusive as though fully set forth herein. 68. PLAINTIFF complains and alleges this cause of action against defendants

ALAMEDA and PLEASANTON. 69. Defendants ALAMEDA and PLEASANTON acted negligently by hiring,

supervising and or retaining officers SILCOCKS and MARTENS (respectively). Further, Defendants ALAMEDA and PLEASANTON acted negligently by failing to adequately supervise and retaining its officers (SILCOCKS and MARTENS). Defendants ALAMEDA and PLEASANTON are liable for the negligent hiring, supervising and retaining of Defendants SILCOCKS and MARTENS in this instance and with respect to PLAINTIFF. Defendants ALAMEDA and PLEASANTON owed a duty of care to PLAINTIFF and maintained a special

- 15 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case3:12-cv-05267-WHA Document9 Filed11/27/12 Page16 of 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

relationship with PLAINTIFF. ALAMEDA and PLEASANTON knew of the potential harm that its officers could cause to PLAINTIFF based on previous complaints about MARTENS and SILCOCKS. ALAMEDA and PLEASANTON failed to properly conduct investigations into the complaints. Further, a special relationship exists between the Defendants PLEASANTON and ALAMEDA with PLAINTIFF in that each owed PLAINTIFF a duty to protect PLAINTIFF and the public, owed PLAINTIFF a duty to keep confidential information it retained about PLAINTIFF confidential and not provide it to the general public. 70. Defendant ALAMEDA and PLEASANTON knew or should have known that

defendant officers were unfit for duty or likely to cause harm to the PLAINTIFF based on its background check, interview, other citizen complaints and investigations, and the officers performance as learned through the course of work. 71. Defendant ALAMEDA and PLEASANTON knew or should have known, with

reasonable diligence on each part, that defendant officers were causing injury to PLAINTIFF and that such injury to PLAINTIFF could or should have been avoided with due diligence. 72. Defendant ALAMEDA and PLEASANTON failed to take remedial actions to

prevent injury to PLAINTIFF. 73. Defendant ALAMEDA and PLEASANTON were the legal and proximate cause

of PLAINTIFFS injuries. 74. PLAINTIFF suffered injuries as legally and proximately caused by Defendants

conduct, action or inactions. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Defamation 75. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference in this cause of action paragraphs 1

through 74 inclusive as though fully set forth herein. 76. PLAINTIFF complains and alleges this cause of action against Defendants TREY

SECORD, LISA SECORD, and LESLEY REGINA. 77. Defendants LISA, REGINA, TREY, MARTENS and SILCOCKS made false

statements , without privilege, about PLAINTIFF and or held PLAINTIFF out in false light.

- 16 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case3:12-cv-05267-WHA Document9 Filed11/27/12 Page17 of 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Further, defendants named herein this cause of action publicly disclosed private facts about PLAINTIFF. 78. The false statements made by named defendants were published to the public or

other people. Likewise, the private facts about PLAINTIFF were unlawfully made public by defendants herein named. 79. The false statements and publicly disclosed private facts made by named

defendants caused PLAINTIFF harm and injury to his reputation. PLAINTIFF suffered injury and damages as a result of defendants unlawful conduct as described in this cause of action. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Civil Rights Violation 42 U.S.C. 1983 80. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference in this cause of action paragraphs 1

through 78 inclusive as though fully set forth herein. 81. PLAINTIFF complains and alleges this cause of action against Defendants TIM

MARTENS, RYAN SILCOCKS, ALAMEDA COUNTY and CITY OF PLEASANTON. 82. Defendant officers MARTENS and SILCOCKS are sworn officers. Each violated

PLAINTIFFS civil rights while acting under color of law. 83. Each defendant herein named in this cause of action violated and deprived

PLAINTIFFS civil rights as guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, substantive due process rights, and Civil Rights violations under 42 U.S.C. 1983. 84. Defendant MARTENS and SILCOCKS each knowingly and unlawfully obtained

and distributed PLAINTIFFS confidential information to private citizens, which they knew was wrong and in violation of law. 85. Defendant Officer MARTENS knowingly made false statements in a police report

about PLAINTIFF. Further, MARTENS conducted a traffic stop and planted evidence on PLAINTIFF, made such disclosures in a police report, caused the report to be used for criminal prosecution against PLAINTIFF, and caused PLAINTIFFS detention and arrest based upon the false evidence. MARTENS did not have probable cause to arrest or detain PLAINTIFF.

- 17 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case3:12-cv-05267-WHA Document9 Filed11/27/12 Page18 of 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Officers MARTENS and SILCOCKS obtained confidential information about PLAINTIFF, and disclosed the confidential information to non-privileged people with the intent to cause harm to PLAINTIFF and interfere with PLAINTIFFS familial relationship. Each officer had the intent to interfere with PLAINTIFFS family law matters. 86. Each officer herein named as a defendant to this cause of action made the arrest

and disclosed such information with the intent to have PLAINTIFF investigated and to deprive PLAINTIFF of custody of his children. Each officers conduct was done under the color of law. 87. Each officers conduct was done while acting under the direction of its municipal

employer. Each employing municipality had a policy, procedure or practice for permitting its officers to obtain information about PLAINTIFF and unlawfully disclose such information to unauthorized individuals. 88. Each officer herein named as a defendant engaged in conduct intending to cause

interference with PLAINTIFFS family relationships. Such conduct violates PLAINTIFFS civil rights under the United States Constitution, Federal statutes, California Constitution, California statutes, and common law. 89. It was the policy, procedure, custom and practice of the employing municipalities

to inadequately supervise, investigate, discipline, and train its sworn officers and law enforcement personnel, specifically defendant officers. Such officers conduct was ratified by the employing municipality. The employing municipalities policy, procedure, custom and practice failed to discourage further unconstitutional conduct by its officers, including these defendant officers. The employing municipalities received complaints about the officers conduct from citizens, conducted investigations into the allegations, and failed to take appropriate disciplinary actions. Following the complaints and investigations, the officers again continued their illegal activity against PLAINTIFF. 90. As a result of the above described policy, procedure, custom and practice of the

employing municipality, its officers, including the defendant officers, believed their actions would not be properly monitored, supervised, investigated or disciplined, therefore tolerated and or ratified.

- 18 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case3:12-cv-05267-WHA Document9 Filed11/27/12 Page19 of 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

91.

Based on the actions listed herein this complaint, the defendants violated

PLAINTIFFS civil rights, thereby causing injury and harm to PLAINTIFF. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION California Civil Code 52.1 92. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference in this cause of action paragraphs 1

through 91 inclusive as though fully set forth herein. 93. PLAINTIFF complains and alleges this cause of action against each and every

named defendant. 94. PLAINTIFF alleges that each and every defendant, in carrying out the conduct as

described in this complaint, violated California Civil Code 52.1 by interfering with and or attempting to interfere with PLAINTIFFS exercise and enjoyment of his rights as secured by the United States Constitution, California Constitution and common law and statutory rights. 95. DEFENDANTS violation of 52.1 have been the proximate and legal cause of

PLAINTIFFS injuries. PLAINTIFF suffered injury and harm as a result of Defendants malicious prosecution. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Abuse of Process 96. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference in this cause of action paragraphs 1

through 95 inclusive as though fully set forth herein. 97. PLAINTIFF complains and alleges this cause of action against Defendants

REGINA, LISA and TREY. 98. Defendants herein named engaged in the activity and conduct alleged in the

complaint for the purpose of using the courts and other legal processes for the purpose of depriving PLAINTIFF of his civil rights and causing other harms without probable cause. 99. Defendants did use legal means in such a wanton disregard of PLAINTIFFS

rights and for malicious purposes. 100. PLAINTIFF had all charges and legal actions dismissed.

- 19 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case3:12-cv-05267-WHA Document9 Filed11/27/12 Page20 of 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

101.

Defendants actions caused PLAINTIFF a deprivation of rights and were the legal

and proximate cause of PLAINTIFFS injury and harm. PLAINTIFF suffered injury and harm as a result of Defendants actions. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION Malicious Prosecution 102. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference in this cause of action paragraphs 1

through 101 inclusive as though fully set forth herein. 103. PLAINTIFF complains and alleges this cause of action against Defendants

MARTENS, SILCOCKS, REGINA, LISA and TREY. 104. Defendants herein named in this cause of action knowingly and with malice

caused an action to be prosecuted in the courts against PLAINTIFF as otherwise described in this complaint. 105. PLAINTIFF was ultimately not convicted or judged guilty of the actions

Defendants forced prosecution of. 106. The criminal charges brought by the District Attorney at the request of

MARTENS were dismissed without prosecution. 107. In their conduct, Defendants were the proximate and legal cause of PLAINTIFFS

injuries and harm. PLAINTIFF suffered injury and harm as a result of Defendants malicious prosecution. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION False Arrest / False Imprisonment 108. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference in this cause of action paragraphs 1

through 107 inclusive as though fully set forth herein. 109. PLAINTIFF complains and alleges this cause of action against Defendants

MARTENS, SILCOCKS, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA and CITY OF PLEASANTON. 110. Officer TIM MARTENS waited outside of PLAINTIFFS house for a couple of

hours waiting for PLAINTIFF to leave his home. After PLAINTIFF left his house, TIM MARTENS stopped PLAINTIFF in his vehicle. TIM MARTENS ordered PLAINTIFF from his

- 20 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case3:12-cv-05267-WHA Document9 Filed11/27/12 Page21 of 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

vehicle and ordered PLAINTIFF to sit on the curb. PLAINTIFF complied. TIM MARTENS then falsely accused PLAINTIFF of possessing methamphetamine, pipes used for smoking methamphetamine, and ammunition. The drugs, pipes, and ammunition were not PLAINTIFFS, nor were they on PLAINTIFFS person or in his vehicle. TIM MARTENS lied about the existence of drugs, pipes and ammunition. 111. TIM MARTENS then arrested PLAINTIFF based on the false evidence or

planted drugs, pipes and ammunition. PLAINTIFF was taken to Santa Rita and jailed. TIM MARTENS made a police and arrest report based on the false or planted drugs, pipes and ammunition. TIM MARTENS made the false police report intentionally, maliciously and with the intent to harm PLAINTIFF. The arrest and police report did cause PLAINTIFF harm. 112. TIM MARTENS knowingly, unlawfully and intentionally create and send the

police and arrest report to LISA and TREY SECORD for use against PLAINTIFF. 113. TIM MARTENS and RYAN SILCOCKS communicated and worked in concert

with one another and with the other defendants to have PLAINTIFF falsely pulled over, arrested, and jailed. The acts were taken in the course and scope of RYAN SILCOCKS and TIM MARTENSS employment with their respective agencies, ALAMEDA COUNTY and CITY OF PLEASANTON. 114. TIM MARTENS and RYAN SILCOCKS arrested PLAINTIFF based on

deliberately false information and evidence. 115. PLAINTIFF has a constitutional right to be secure from unreasonable search,

seizure and detention under the Fourth Amendment and due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. 116. In their conduct, Defendants herein named in this cause of action were the legal

and proximate cause of PLAINTIFFS harm. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Public Disclosure of Private Facts 117. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference in this cause of action paragraphs 1

through 116 inclusive as though fully set forth herein.

- 21 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case3:12-cv-05267-WHA Document9 Filed11/27/12 Page22 of 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

118.

PLAINTIFF complains and alleges this cause of action against Defendants

MARTENS, SILCOCKS, REGINA, LISA SECORD, and TREY SECORD. 119. Defendants herein named in this cause of action did publicly disclosure to other

people and each other private facts about PLAINTIFF, including the confidential police report and other police information and data. 120. OFFICERS MARTENS and SILCOCKS each intentionally and with intent to

cause harm to PLAINTIFF disclosed private factual information that was only available to law enforcement personnel to private parties not otherwise privileged to receive such information. 121. The information about PLAINTIFF that was disclosed was highly sensitive,

offensive and confidential and was offensive and objectionable to PLAINTIFF and reasonable people. 122. The confidential private information publicly disclosed about PLAINTIFF was

not of legitimate public concern. In fact, the law requires such information be kept confidential and shielded from disclosure. PRAYER FOR RELIEF PLAINTIFF suffered severe emotional distress, economic loss, pain, suffering, anxiety, damage to reputation, deprivation of rights and other injuries and harm as may be determined by the trier of fact. WHEREFORE plaintiff prays judgment against each and every defendant and seeks damages in the amount of $3,000,000.00 as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Compensatory Damages; Special Damages General and Punitive Damages; Damages for Emotional Distress; Pain and Suffering Damages; Economic Damages; Statutory Damages, including treble damages and civil penalties; Attorney Fees;

- 22 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case3:12-cv-05267-WHA Document9 Filed11/27/12 Page23 of 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

9. 10.

Interest and Costs; and, Any other damages as the Court finds appropriate and just.

DATED this 27th day of November 2012

By:

_____________/s/____________________ JEFFERY M. HUBINS [State Bar 220657] [email protected] SCHAUMAN & HUBINS 5700 Stoneridge Mall Road, Suite 130 Pleasanton, California 94588 Tel: (925) 846-5400 Fax: (925) 846-5402 Representing Plaintiff, BRIAN LANCASTER

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues and causes of action related to this complaint.

DATED this 27th day of November 2012

By:

______________/s/___________________ JEFFERY M. HUBINS [State Bar 220657] [email protected] SCHAUMAN & HUBINS 5700 Stoneridge Mall Road, Suite 130 Pleasanton, California 94588 Tel: (925) 846-5400 Fax: (925) 846-5402 Representing Plaintiff, BRIAN LANCASTER

- 23 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES