Case 3:21-cv-01463-VC Document 66 Filed 11/15/21 Page 1 of 22

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

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

David R. Bush, State Bar No. 154511 LAW OFFICE OF DAVID R. BUSH 321 South Main Street #502 Sebastopol CA 95472 Telephone: (707) 321-5028 [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiffs ESTATE OF SANDRA LEE HARMON, by and through successor in interest SARAH GATLIFF, and SARAH GATLIFF individually

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ESTATE OF SANDRA LEE HARMON, by and through successor in interest SARAH GATLIFF, and SARAH GATLIFF individually, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, DAVID DOMINGUEZ, JOHN BABA, CITY OF HALF MOON BAY, and DOES 1-150, Defendants.

Case No. 21-CV-01463-VC SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. EXCESSIVE FORCE/ UNREASONABLE SEIZURE (42 U.S.C. §1983) 2. MUNICIPAL LIABILITY FOR UNCONSTITUTIONAL CUSTOMS AND PRACTICES (42 U.S.C. §1983) 3. LOSS OF FAMILIAL ASSOCIATION (42 U.S.C. §1983) 4. WRONGFUL DEATH/NEGLIGENCE PER SE (C.C.P. §377.6) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED REQUEST FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES

Case 3:21-cv-01463-VC Document 66 Filed 11/15/21 Page 1 of 22

mailto:[email protected]

1


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

COME NOW PLAINTIFFS, ESTATE OF SANDRA LEE HARMON, by and through

successor in interest SARAH GATLIFF, and SARAH GATLIFF individually, who make

complaint against each and every Defendant and allege as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. This civil rights action arises out of the killing of SANDRA LEE HARMON

(“HARMON”) on May 5, 2020, in CITY OF HALF MOON BAY, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

by San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office (“SMCSO”) deputy DAVID DOMINGUEZ

(“DOMINGUEZ”). That day, Ms. HARMON was a mentally ill person in crisis. She was

convinced of an impending “race war” that would start that night. She was walking the streets

warning people to go home and prepare. She was carrying a bottle of wine and a shotgun, but

she never threatened anyone at any time. Not only was she not an imminent threat, she was shot

in the back while complying with orders; hands in the air, back to the officer. All Ms.

HARMON wanted was for people to be safe from the “race war” she was convinced was coming

that evening.

2. Ms. HARMON was a loving mother to SARAH GATLIFF (“GATLIFF”), and

she was loved deeply in return. SARAH GATLIFF was dependent on Ms. HARMON in all the

ways a daughter with a close relationship to her mother is dependent, including but not limited to

love, emotional support, physical contact, conversation, and advice. Ms. HARMON raised

GATLIFF alone from age twelve as a single parent providing a loving home to her daughter.

The two maintained this loving relationship and continued to be in constant contact and

communication throughout GATLIFF’s adult life--until the day Ms. HARMON lost her life. As

the sole parental figure in GATLIFF’s life since age twelve, HARMON provided all the things,

physical and emotional, that a loving parent provides for a child after Ms. GATLIFF’s father

abandoned her at age 12. GATLIFF also provided the loving support for her mother that only a

daughter can. At the time of her death, HARMON and GATLIFF were living together,


2


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

demonstrating just how close their relationship was and how they relied on each other. The two

were strongly committed to supporting each other in any way possible. Ms. HARMON’s death

has been an immeasurable loss and sadness to Ms. GATLIFF, who lost her mother, her closest

confidant and friend, and the sole parent in her life on May 5, 2020.

3. DOMINGUEZ, the SMCSO deputy primarily responsible for Plaintiff’s death,

violated SMCSO and standard policing protocol at least twice on the night of the shooting:

a) failing to wait for back-up to arrive before initiating contact with people inside the RV; and

b) failing to turn on his body camera even though he had ample time to do so and nothing was

causing him to hurry or react. According to the investigation by San Mateo County District

Attorney’s Office (“SMCDAO”) and Stephen Wagstaffe (“Wagstaffe”), he simply forgot to do it

and there were no consequences. In the alternative to DOMINGUEZ’ failure to turn on his body

camera, DOMINGUEZ turned on his body camera before initiating contact, but the captured

footage was not uploaded as required and its existence has been covered-up by all Defendants.

4. In either alternative, on the night of the shooting, SMCSO sergeant James Goulart

(“Goulart”) was in charge at the scene after his arrival. Inspectors from the SMCDAO were also

present and took possession of several items from DOMINGUEZ and SMCSO deputy JOHN

BABA (“BABA”), except for their body worn cameras (“body-cams”), which the SMCSO

maintained in their possession and control. The footage from BABA’s body-cam was held by

Goulart and/or BABA and was not uploaded to the SMCDAO investigators until the next day,

12-18 hours after the shooting. The deputies, Goulart and even the SMCDAO inspectors failed

to maintain proper chain-of-custody information for the BABA video, and the body-cams of

DOMINGUEZ and BABA.

5. Defendants were all aware the video from BABA’s body-cam had been shot in

high-resolution and altered at some point to low-resolution, although the Critical Incident Video

labeled the video “unaltered.” This change made the video appear grainy and hard to see in


3


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

detail. Further, Defendants purposefully failed to include critical audio recordings in the

investigation that demonstrate unequivocally that DOMINGUEZ fired first at Ms. HARMON

that night. Defendants also failed to request DOMINGUEZ’ body-cam records from Axon, the

company that controls the information, per standard investigatory protocol, to determine if

DOMINGUEZ’ body-cam had captured footage of the incident.

6. At all relevant times it was known to Defendants COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

and CITY OF HALF MOON BAY, as well as SMCDAO, SMCSO, Bolanos, and Wagstaffe that

75-80% of all police shootings in the COUNTY OF SAN MATEO involve mentally ill people,

and that across the state that number is well over 50%. Nevertheless, these Defendants

knowingly chose tactical responses in these instances for use by its officers instead of training

them in what is known as Crisis Intervention Training (“CIT”). CIT teaches de-escalation and

introduces officers to mental health experts and to mentally ill people and their families. Further,

since 1998 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO has maintained a Critical Incident Stress Management

Team (“CISMT”) that is available to SMCSO deputies, city police, and other county first

responders to deal with their own stress. This program claims it is available to first responders

before, during, and after a critical incident. But there was no crisis intervention for Ms.

HARMON or any other mentally ill people. This is because COUNTY OF SAN MATEO as a

custom or practice uses SMCSO officers and other police officers, as opposed to fire or health

services, to deal with mental ill people in crisis. The officers are severely undertrained in CIT,

but they are all heavily trained in tactical responses and they are given multiple tactical weapons.

For Ms. HARMON that meant multiple officers— multiple guns pointed at her—multiple orders

shouted over each other; just as the officers had been instructed to do. Rather than de-escalate

the situation, the deputies’ actions, especially those of DOMINGUEZ who actually created the

crisis, escalated the situation to a terminal point.


4


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

7. It is a matter of COUNTY OF SAN MATEO and SMCSO policy that SMCSO

deputy officers will receive inadequate CIT, and instead Defendants will use available funds for

tactical training and equipment. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO and SMCSO knowingly choose to

send these untrained and undertrained officers to patrol knowing such officers will encounter

mentally ill persons and will respond with inappropriate and excessive force. This is in

opposition to at least one adjacent county, Alameda, which has chosen to use their fire

departments to respond to mentally ill people in crisis instead of officers. The COUNTY OF

SAN MATEO policy to use tactical responses over CIT has led to multiple shootings by SMCSO

deputies, as well as other city police, of people who suffer from mental illness. In Ms.

HARMON’S case, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO and SMCSO were also aware that

DOMINGUEZ had failed to pass his field training with San Mateo P.D. and had been dismissed

shortly before being hired by the SMCSO.

8. The history of mentally ill people in crisis who were killed by COUNTY OF SAN

MATEO officers untrained or undertrained in CIT by COUNTY OF SAN MATEO includes but

is not limited to SANDRA LEE HARMON, Chinedu Okobi, Fernando Cazares, Stanley Wong,

Edgar Aristondo, Robert Carron, Yanira Serrano Garcia, and Errol Chang. On October 3, 2018,

Mr. Okobi was walking down the street when a SMCSO deputy decided to stop him, allegedly

for running between traffic even though dash-cam video would prove this to be false. Within

two minutes of initiating contact with Mr. Okobi, who suffered from mental illness, five SMCSO

deputies had killed him with tasers while a SMCSO sergeant looked on and shouted instructions.

Wagstaffe, Bolanos, and the deputies involved then knowingly provided false testimony and

reports of the incident to cover-up the facts. On June 4, 2014, SMCSO deputies shot and killed

eighteen-year-old Yanira Serrano Garcia outside her home after relatives called 911. The family

who witnessed the event blamed the cavalier attitude and lack of CIT training of the SMCSO

deputy as the cause of the escalation that led to a knife being wielded by Ms. Garcia, who was


5


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

five feet tall, weighed 200 pounds, and had a birth defect for which she limped badly and could

not run. Like Ms. Harmon, a slight woman who stood with her hands above her head and her

back to Deputy DOMINGUEZ, her physical presence presented no danger to the deputy or

anyone else at the time he took her life. In August 2010, Edgar Aristondo was shot and killed by

Burlingame police after his mother called for help because of his erratic behavior. Police claim

they killed him because he was wielding a kitchen knife, which was denied by his mother, who

blamed the police on escalating the situation. In September 2006, San Mateo police shot and

killed Stanly Wong, a mentally ill homeless man known by police as someone who would

benefit from outreach. Instead, he was shot and killed when allegedly wielding a small

pocketknife at the officer. In March 2005, Redwood City police killed Fernando Cazares inside

his home after the schizophrenic man refused to be subdued. In February 2011, Robert Carron, a

schizophrenic man, was shot by San Mateo police in his backyard after he allegedly opened fire

upon their arrival. It was the actions of the officers in all these cases that escalated emotions and

heightened the tensions that led directly to the deaths of these people who suffered from mental

illness in COUNTY OF SAN MATEO.

JURISDICTION & VENUE

9. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction is based upon 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and

1343.

10. The claims alleged herein arose in COUNTY OF SAN MATEO in the State of

California. Venue for this action lies in the United States District Court for the Northern District

of California under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2).

11. Pursuant to Gov. Code §910, and the Governor’s Executive orders extending the

time to submit California government claims, government claim forms were timely submitted to

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO on November 4, 2020 (“Claimant’s name: SARAH ELIZABETH


6


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

GATLIFF”), and the CITY OF HALF MOON BAY on November 29, 2020 (“[Claimant’s]

Name: Family of Sandra Lee Harmon (Sarah Gatliff) through attorney David R. Bush”), for the

May 5, 2020, shooting. Additional tort claims for conspiracy and spoliation were submitted in

January and February 2021 to both Defendants. All forms adequately state damages on behalf

of SARAH GATLIFF individually and ESTATE OF SANDRA LEE HARMON.

12. With respect to Plaintiff SARAH GATLIFF’s supplemental state claim, Plaintiff

requests this Court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claim as it arises from the same

facts and circumstances that underlie the federal claims.

PARTIES

13. SANDRA LEE HARMON was, at all relevant times, a resident of COUNTY OF

SAN MATEO, and is the natural mother of SARAH GATLIFF.

14. The claims made by the ESTATE OF SANDRA LEE HARMON, are brought by

and through SARAH GATLIFF, the authorized representative of the successor-in-interest to the

ESTATE OF SANDRA LEE HARMON, William Harmon. Mr. Harmon is the long estranged,

but not divorced, husband of Ms. HARMON. William Harmon transferred the right to pursue

this action on behalf of the ESTATE OF SANDRA LEE HARMON to SARAH GATLIFF by

written assignment. This assignment is included with the Amended Declaration pursuant to

California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) §377.32 filed with this Court by Plaintiffs, which

includes the requisite declaration, death certificate, and written assignment of the right to pursue

this action pursuant to C.C.P. §377.32.

15. SARAH GATLIFF, an individual, brings her own state law claim for the

wrongful death of her mother. Ms. GATLIFF complied with CCP §§911.2 and 954.4 by

submitting timely government claims to COUNTY OF SAN MATEO on November 4, 2020,

and to CITY OF HALF MOON BAY on December 3, 2020. HARMON had two children,

GATLIFF and her brother, Dustin Gatliff. Dustin Gatliff asked not to be named in any court


7


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

proceedings and strenuously objected to signing anything or being involved in any way. Even

though he is a “necessary party” to be joined in this matter, his joinder is not feasible. Similar

to William Harmon, the brother wishes to have nothing to do with any claims or lawsuits for the

incident. Stating the reasons for the brother’s vehement refusal to be involved would be

speculation, but he did make his wishes clear. GATLIFF included this information in her

C.C.P. 377.32 declaration. Although both William Harmon and the brother were given the

opportunity to join the government claims and this suit, both refused and failed to comply with

the government claims requirements, leaving SARAH GATLIFF as the only person to have met

this obligation.

16. A great injustice would be done both to HARMON and GATLIFF if GATLIFF

were refused the right to bring this suit because William Harmon and her brother do not want to

join. Further, service upon the brother would be exceedingly difficult or impossible, and there

are jurisdictional issues since he lives outside California. Making the brother an involuntary

plaintiff would also not be feasible for all the reasons stated and would serve no purpose in

terms of final adjudication of the matter as he has already given up the right to pursue state

claims. William Harmon has assigned his rights to GATLIFF and stated in his declaration he

does not wish to participate in any portion of the suit, including the wrongful death claim.

Therefore, proceeding without these two persons would serve no injustice and would be in-line

with the wishes of both. As stated above, neither William Harmon nor Dustin Gatliff

administratively exhausted their claims, despite being given the opportunity to do so as part of

this suit.

17. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO is a public entity situated in the State of California

and organized under the laws of the State of California. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO is

responsible for the actions, omissions, policies, procedures, practices and customs of its various

agents and agencies, as well as for presenting Critical Incident Training (“CIT”) to all officers


8


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

located within the county, including city police. At all times relevant to the facts alleged herein,

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO was responsible for assuring that the acts, omissions, policies,

procedures, practices and customs of its employees complied with the laws and the

Constitutions of the United States and of the State of California.

18. SMCSO and SMCDAO are both subdivisions and/or agencies of COUNTY OF

SAN MATEO. Both agencies have jurisdiction throughout all of COUNTY OF SAN MATEO,

including within incorporated cities.

19. At all relevant times, Bolanos was the elected Sheriff of San Mateo County and

an agent of COUNTY OF SAN MATEO.

20. At all relevant times, Wagstaffe was the elected District Attorney of San Mateo

County and an agent of COUNTY OF SAN MATEO.

21. At all relevant times, DOMINGUEZ was an SMCSO officer and employee of the

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, acting at the time of the shooting as CITY OF HALF MOON

BAY police, by contract between the SMCSO and the CITY OF HALF MOON BAY.

22. At all relevant times, BABA was an SMCSO officer and employee of the

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, acting at the time of the shooting as CITY OF HALF MOON

BAY police, by contract between the SMCSO and the CITY OF HALF MOON BAY.

23. At all relevant times, Goulart was an SMCSO officer with the rank of sergeant

and employee of the COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, acting at the time of the shooting as CITY OF

HALF MOON BAY police, by contract between the SMCSO and the CITY OF HALF MOON

BAY.

24. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or

otherwise, of Defendants DOES 1 through 150, inclusive, are unknown to the Plaintiffs, who

therefore sue said Defendants by such fictitious names. Defendants DOES 1 through 150, and

each of them, were responsible in some manner for the injuries and damages alleged herein.


9


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

Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege upon information and belief that each of

them is responsible, in some manner, for the injuries and damages alleged herein.

25. In doing the acts and/or omissions alleged herein, the individual Defendants,

including DOES 1 through 150, acted in concert with each of the other Defendants herein.

26. At all relevant times, DOMINGUEZ and BABA acted under color of state law in

the course and scope of their duties as agents and employees of the COUNTY OF SAN

MATEO and CITY OF HALF MOON BAY.

27. Each of the Defendants caused and is responsible for the unlawful conduct

resulting in the death of SANDRA LEE HARMON by personally participating in the conduct or

acting jointly and in concert with others who did so; or by authorizing, acquiescing or failing to

take action to prevent the unlawful conduct; or by promulgating policies and procedures

pursuant to which the unlawful conduct occurred; or by liability through contractual relations.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

28. SANDRA LEE HARMON was fifty-six years old when she was killed by

DOMINGUEZ. Plaintiff was a functional member of society despite her mental illness. She

had no history of violence or arrest.

29. On May 5, 2020, Ms. HARMON became agitated about an impending “race war”

and began walking around downtown Half Moon Bay to warn people to be safe. At the time,

she was seen carrying a bottle of wine and a shotgun held in a non-threatening position. A

witness called 9-1-1 from downtown and told the operator what was happening and reported

under questioning that she had not been threatened in any way. In fact, just the opposite, she

said Ms. HARMON was warning people to be safe.

30. Within minutes of the 9-1-1 call, SMCSO deputies, including DOMINGUEZ,

acting as de facto Half Moon Bay Police, arrived downtown and began asking people if they

had seen Ms. HARMON. Deputies also found the 9-1-1 caller, who provided no further


10


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

information, but while interviewing her another male individual approached and mentioned the

“trailer behind Pasta Moon” (the “RV”) as a possible location for HARMON. Deputies

searched downtown for more than 20 minutes but did not find Ms. HARMON. Then, for

reasons unknown, DOMINGUEZ proceeded alone to Pasta Moon restaurant to check the RV.

31. DOMINGUEZ, who had been on the force for at least 20 months at the time,

drove to Pasta Moon restaurant where there was a lone RV in the rear corner of the parking lot.

For reasons unknown and in violation of SMCSO protocol and basic policing protocol,

DOMINGUEZ failed to request or to wait for back-up before approaching the RV and

purportedly did not turn his body-cam on, despite having no time constraints. He pounded on the

side of the RV and ordered the occupants to exit. Ms. HARMON looked out the side door and

exited the RV holding the shotgun in a non-threatening position. DOMINGUEZ immediately

panicked and began moving toward his vehicle as he discharged three rounds in quick

succession, possibly wounding her in the right arm, even though Ms. HARMON had not fired

the shotgun. Such action by DOMINGUEZ was in contravention of CIT, which dictates the

officer engage in dialog to attempt to calm the situation. Instead, DOMINGUEZ began shooting.

After his three shots at her, Ms. HARMON discharged two rounds harmlessly into the air in a

direction toward the restaurant and away from DOMINGUEZ, who was moving to the front of

his vehicle. The fact she shot into the air and away is supported by the fact no shotgun pellets

were recovered in the parking lot of Pasta Moon and wadding allegedly from HARMON’s

shotgun was found on the roof of Pasta Moon, approximately 100 feet and 60 degrees away from

where DOMINGUEZ was located at the time she fired. Ms. HARMON then emerged from

behind the RV and DOMINGUEZ began shouting orders with his 9 mm pistol drawn.

DOMINGUEZ ordered Ms. HARMON to stand holding the shotgun with both hands over her

head and her back to the deputy. Ms. HARMON immediately complied. When DOMINGUEZ

fired his fourth shot, into HARMON’s back, she had her back to DOMINGUEZ, with her arms


11


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

above her head and the shotgun held horizontally in both hands so it was impossible to fire. At

the moment of the fifth and final shot of the series, the shotgun was laying approximately four to

six feet away from her, having fallen from above her head when she was hit by DOMINGUEZ’

fourth shot.

32. Since she had just been shot while complying with orders, Ms. HARMON

understandably reacted in fear as BABA arrived and he and DOMINGUEZ both were shouting

orders at her. First she attempted to flee, but realizing she had no escape she turned back toward

the officers and screamed at them in frustration. She then ran back to the shotgun that was lying

on the ground and as she reached down she was shot an additional six times by both deputies.

Even though she was fatally wounded, Ms. HARMON would continue to live and to suffer for

several more minutes. In all, Ms. HARMON was shot eight times. The San Mateo County

Coroner’s Office, who deemed the killing a homicide, found DOMINGUEZ’ seventh shot

overall, and the fourth in his second volley of shots, went into Ms. Harmon’s back and was the

primary cause of her death. In the totality of the circumstances, Ms. HARMON was never a

threat to anybody, including herself and DOMINGUEZ. But for the actions of DOMINGUEZ,

Ms. HARMON would not have felt the need to protect herself from further attack by

DOMINGUEZ.

33. These events were partially captured on both video from the body worn camera of

BABA, who arrived on the scene after the shooting had begun, and the dash-cam audio from

BABA and other officers in the vicinity who were responding to the call for help from

DOMINGUEZ. BABA’s body-cam video shows HARMON with her hands above her head and

her back to DOMINGUEZ preceding and at the moment she is fatally wounded by

DOMINGUUEZ as he fires his seventh shot overall into her back.

34. The audio files obtained from the recording devices of BABA, Deputy Daniel

Cuevas’ in-car audio, and possibly other officers, confirm that DOMINGUEZ discharged his


12


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

weapon three times prior to any shots that Ms. HARMON might have fired, despite

DOMINGUEZ and the other Defendants falsely reporting that Ms. HARMON fired first.

35. In the official investigation, DOMINGUEZ’ violations of protocol are not cited:

failure to turn on his body camera when initiating contact and failure to call in and wait for back-

up at the scene before initiating contact with the occupants of the RV.

STATEMENT OF DAMAGES

36. As a result of the acts and/or omissions alleged herein, Plaintiff SANDRA LEE

HARMON, bringing this action by and through her Estate, suffered general damages including

death due to unreasonable force and/or seizure, extreme and severe pain and suffering, both

physical and mental, in an amount to be determined according to proof.

37. As a result of the acts and/or omissions alleged herein SARAH GATLIFF, an

individual, was deprived of familial association with her mother, including the loss of her

comfort and society in an amount to be determined according to proof. Further, GATLIFF

suffered extreme emotional distress at the wrongful death and further at the release of the

distorted Critical Incident video.

38. The acts and omissions of Defendants COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, SMCSO,

SMCDAO, DOMINGUEZ, BABA, , Wagstaffe, and CITY OF HALF MOON BAY were

willful, wanton, reckless, malicious, oppressive and/or done with a conscious or reckless

disregard for the rights of Plaintiffs.

39. Plaintiffs have retained private counsel to represent them in this matter and are

entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.

///


13


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

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

EXCESSIVE FORCE/UNREASONABLE SEIZURE

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Against DEFENDANTS DOMINGUEZ AND BABA

By ESTATE OF SANDRA LEE HARMON

40. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference as though fully set forth

herein all prior paragraphs of this Complaint.

41. Defendants DOMINGUEZ and BABA violated SANDRA LEE HARMON’s

right to be free from excessive and unreasonable force and seizure as guaranteed by the First and

Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution. At the time of her killing, Ms. HARMON

was not engaging in threatening behavior toward DOMINGUEZ or anybody else. Under the

totality of the circumstances, she posed no threat to DOMINGUEZ, BABA, or anyone.

42. An objectively reasonable officer would have known that the use of the force

exerted on Ms. HARMON was excessive and unreasonable and would cause severe and

excruciating pain, suffering and death.

43. Defendants DOMINGUEZ and BABA acted willfully, wantonly, maliciously,

oppressively, and with conscious disregard to Plaintiff’s safety and rights, and therefore punitive

damages are warranted against these individual defendants.

44. These Defendants’ misconduct caused Plaintiff to suffer excruciating pain, mental

anguish, and fear before she died.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff ESTATE OF SANDRA LEE HARMON prays for relief as hereinafter

set forth.

///


14


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

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

MUNICIPAL LIABILITY FOR UNCONSTITUTIONAL CUSTOMS AND PRACTICES

42 U.S.C. §1983

Against COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, CITY OF HALF MOON BAY, DOES 1-5

By ESTATE OF SANDRA LEE HARMON and SARAH GATLIFF, individually

45. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate through reference all prior paragraphs

of the Complaint.

46. On or before May 5, 2020, and prior to Ms. HARMON’s death, COUNTY OF

SAN MATEO and CITY OF HALF MOON BAY were aware, or should have been, that

SMCSO officers were improperly trained in CIT, engaged in a custom and practice of reckless

and dangerous use of violence when dealing with mentally ill persons, and that DOMINGUEZ

and BABA were improperly trained according to custom and practice, and thus would likely

escalate any situation they responded to involving a mentally ill person in crisis. Nearly all

training the officers received from COUNTY OF SAN MATEO and CITY OF HALF MOON

BAY focused on tactical responses employing lethal force rather than CIT.

47. The COUNTY OF SAN MATEO became aware that DOMINGUEZ was unfit to

perform the work for which he was hired due to lack of training and experience prior to May 5,

2020. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO knew that DOMINGUEZ was not trained, or improperly

trained, in CIT, especially in dealing with mentally ill persons in crisis, including the use of de-

escalation tactics. Instead of CIT, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO provided extensive tactical

training in how to exert lethal force in dealing with mentally ill people in crisis, as well as

tactical gear and weapons. Further, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO knew DOMINGUEZ had

failed his Field Training Assignment with San Mateo P.D. and was terminated by that agency as

being unfit for service. Despite this knowledge, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO refused to address

DOMINGUEZ’s glaring deficiencies as an officer and allowed his dangerousness to go


15


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

unmitigated, without appropriate training or discipline. CITY OF HALF MOON BAY is liable

through contract because it retained SMCSO as its municipal police and it should have known of

these deficiencies.

48. With deliberate indifference to the rights of Ms. HARMON and her family, and of

the public in general, especially people who suffer from mental illness, COUNTY OF SAN

MATEO and CITY OF HALF MOON BAY, through its final policymakers knowingly

maintained, enforced, and applied customs and practices of:

a. Encouraging, accommodating, or ratifying DOMINGUEZ’s use of excessive,

unreasonable, and deadly force against mentally ill persons instead of providing and encouraging

the use of CIT techniques.

b. Encouraging, accommodating, or facilitating a code of silence among deputies,

employees, and supervisors, pursuant to which false reports were generated, evidence was

spoliated, excessive and unreasonable force was covered up, whistleblowers were punished, and

internal and SMCDA investigations were performed with predetermined outcomes. Further,

vital evidence was purposefully not sought in the investigation by the SMCDAO and Wagstaffe,

and instances of perjury and dishonesty were ignored.

c. Employing and retaining deputies such as DOMINGUEZ and BABA, who

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO and CITY OF HALF MOON BAY, or in the exercise of

reasonable care should have known, were untrained or undertrained in CIT, violent, unfit for

duty, abused their authority, and mistreated members of the public, especially those with mental

illness.

d. Inadequately supervising, training, and disciplining deputies including

DOMINGUEZ and BABA, who COUNTY OF SAN MATEO and CITY OF HALF MOON

BAY knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, would improperly escalate


16


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

any confrontation with a mentally ill person, would improperly use lethal force, would be

violent, would abuse their authority, and would mistreat members of the public.

e. Maintaining grossly inadequate procedures for reporting, supervising,

investigating, reviewing, disciplining and controlling reckless and intentional misconduct by

SMCSO deputies, especially by using the SMCDAO to investigate all police shootings and

failing to follow minimally sufficient investigation protocols and procedures.

f. Never disciplining deputies for excessive force, no matter the circumstances,

thereby adopting a de facto policy that officers would never be disciplined no matter how much

force they used. Deputy DOMINGUEZ was aware of this practice and of the predetermined

outcome that the SMCDA would provide in finding no wrongdoing in any police shooting or

killing of a mentally ill person, as demonstrated by the named cases in COUNTY OF SAN

MATEO since at least 2014.

49. By reason of the aforementioned customs and practices of COUNTY OF SAN

MATEO and CITY OF HALF MOON BAY, SANDRA LEE HARMON was grievously injured

and subjected to unbearable and excruciating physical and mental pain and suffering, before

being ultimately killed by DOMNINGUEZ and BABA.

50. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO through officials named and unnamed had actual or

constructive knowledge of the constitutionally deficient customs and practices alleged above.

Yet despite this knowledge, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO accepted and condoned these illegal

customs and practices, thereby ratifying them, and acted with deliberate indifference to the

foreseeable effects and consequences of these policies with respect to rights of Ms. HARMON,

her family, and the general public, especially those who suffer from mental illness.

51. These customs and practices were so closely related to the deprivation of

Plaintiffs’ rights as to be the moving force that caused the ultimate injuries to SANDRA LEE

HARMON.


17


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

52. By reason of the aforementioned acts and omissions, SANDRA LEE HARMON

was killed, and her daughter suffered the irreparable loss of her love, affection, society, and

moral support.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs ESTATE OF SANDRA LEE HARMON and SARAH GATLIFF, an

individual, pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

DEPRIVATION OF FAMILIAL ASSOCIATION

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Against DEFENDANTS DOMINGUEZ and BABA

By SARAH GATLIFF, an individual

53. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference as though fully set forth

herein all prior paragraphs of this Complaint, with emphasis on paragraph 2.

54. By and through the acts and omissions alleged herein, Defendants DOMINGUEZ

and BABA deprived Plaintiff SARAH GATLIFF of the familial relationship between mother and

daughter, thereby violating Plaintiffs’ rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the

Constitution of the United States. These Defendants acted with a specific purpose to harm

SANDRA LEE HARMON, as demonstrated by the facts: DOMINGUEZ had time to deliberate

prior to initiating contact with the occupants of the RV; DOMINGUEZ knew from the 9-1-1 call

and talking to the 9-1-1 caller downtown that he was dealing with a mentally ill person in crisis;

DOMINGUEZ suspected Ms. HARMON was in the RV; DOMINGUEZ had time to request and

wait for back-up; protocol dictates he should have called and waited for back-up; DOMINGUEZ

fired the first three shots at HARMON even though she presented no threat; DOMINGUEZ shot

HARMON fatally as she complied with his orders and with her back to DOMINGUEZ and her

hands above her head. Even if it is found DOMINGUEZ’ actions were merely indifferent, these

facts readily shock the conscience of the reasonable person. We do not speculate here; the


18


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

community of Half Moon Bay was shocked to the core by the facts surrounding Ms.

HARMON’s shooting. The Half Moon Bay City Council demanded a special public meeting

with San Mateo County District Attorney Stephen Wagstaffe and then, after the meeting, voted

unanimously to ask the California Attorney General to investigate the HARMON shooting due to

the large number of inconsistencies in the investigation and the facts surrounding the shooting.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff SARAH GATLIFF prays for relief as set forth. The acts, or failures to

act, of Defendants, especially DOMINGUEZ, were the direct cause of Ms. HARMON’S death.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(PENDENT STATE CLAIM)

WRONGFUL DEATH

Cal. Civ. Pro. §377.60

Against DEFENDANTS COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, CITY OF

HALF MON BAY, DOMINGUEZ and BABA

By SARAH GATLIFF, an individual

55. Plaintiffs hereby re-alleges and incorporates through reference all prior

paragraphs of the Complaint.

56. Defendants DOMINGUEZ and BABA, while working in the course and scope of

their employment as SMCSO deputies, employed negligent and/or defective tactics and

intentionally and/or without due care killed SANDRA LEE HARMON. Plaintiff’s death directly

resulted from DOMINGUEZ’s and BABA’s unsafe, improper, unnecessary, and negligent and/or

intentional acts, and because of these intentional and/or negligent acts, SANDRA LEE

HARMON suffered serious physical and mental injuries and ultimately died. DOMINGUEZ

and BABA lacked any reasonable justification for killing SANDRA LEE HARMON, who in the

totality of the circumstances presented no threat to DOMINGUEZ, BABA, or anyone else at the

time she was killed.


19


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

57. DOMINGUEZ’s and BABA’s actions were in direct violation of Cal. Pen. Code §

835(a), use of force by a police officer.


243(d), battery causing serious bodily injury.


245(a)(1), assault with a deadly weapon.


245(a)(4), assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury.

61. DOMINGUEZ’s and BABA’s actions were in direct violation of Cal. Pen. Code

§§ 192(a), voluntary manslaughter, 192(b), involuntary manslaughter, and/or 187(a), murder in

the second degree.

62. The violations of these laws were a substantial factor in causing the death of

SANDRA LEE HARMON.

63. The COUNTY OF SAN MATEO and CITY OF HALF MOON BAY are

vicariously liable for the unlawful acts and omissions of DOMINGUEZ and BABA as alleged

herein.

64. SARAH GATLIFF has one sibling, Dustin Gatliff, who is the son of Ms.

HARMON. Similar to William Harmon, Dustin wishes to have nothing to do with any claims or

lawsuits for the incident. Further, Dustin will not sign any documents. Although both William

Harmon and Dustin Gatliff were given the opportunity to join the government claims and the

suit, both refused and failed to comply with the government claims requirements and did not

administratively exhaust the claim, leaving SARAH GATLIFF as the only person to have met

this obligation. Dustin lives outside the State of California and service is impractical and

infeasible.


20


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

65. It was SARAH GATLIFF alone who fulfilled requirements for filing timely

government claims for the incident with the COUNTY OF SAN MATEO and CITY OF HALF

MOON BAY on her own behalf as well as her mothers’. William Harmon has disavowed his

right to be involved in this matter and even assigned any rights he might have to GATLIFF for

the wrongful death claim.

66. A great injustice will have been done if GATLIFF is denied her wrongful death

claim because William Harmon and Dustin Gatliff do not wish to be involved, especially since

the judgment can be shaped around them and there would be limited, or no, accountability for the

wrongful shooting of Ms. HARMON by the parties responsible.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff SARAH GATLIFF prays for relief as hereinafter set forth.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows:

1. For compensatory and economic damages according to proof;

2. For general damages according to proof;

3. For an award of exemplary or punitive damages against DOMINGUEZ and

BABA in their individual capacity;

4. For an award of attorneys’ fees and costs as permitted by law; and

5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem necessary and

appropriate.

///


21


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

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiffs hereby request a jury trial on all issues so triable.

Dated: 11/15/2021

Respectfully Submitted, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID R. BUSH

By: ________/david r. bush/______________ David R. Bush, Attorney for Plaintiffs ESTATE OF SANDRA LEE HARMON and SARAH GATLIFF


DECLARATION PURSUANT TO CCP §377.32

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

David R. Bush, State Bar No. 154511 LAW OFFICE OF DAVID R. BUSH 321 South Main Street #502 Sebastopol CA 95472 Telephone: (707) 321-5028 [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiffs ESTATE OF SANDRA LEE HARMON, by and through successor in interest SARAH GATLIFF, and SARAH GATLIFF individually

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ESTATE OF SANDRA LEE HARMON, by and through successor in interest SARAH GATLIFF, and SARAH GATLIFF individually, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, DAVID DOMINGUEZ, JOHN BABA, CITY OF HALF MOON BAY, and DOES 1-150, Defendants.

Case No. 3:21-cv-01463

DECLARATION OF SARAH GATLIFF PURSUANT TO CCP §377.32

Case 3:21-cv-01463-VC Document 66-1 Filed 11/15/21 Page 1 of 3

mailto:[email protected]

1 DECLARATION PURSUANT TO CCP §377.32

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

I, Sarah Gatliff, declare as follows:

1. The decedent SANDRA LEE HARMON was my mother.

2. SANDRA LEE HARMON was shot dead in Half Moon Bay, CA, on May 5, 2020.

3. No probate or administration proceeding has happened or is now pending in California for

SANDRA LEE HARMON.

4. SARAH GATLIFF is authorized to act on behalf of the decedent’s successor in interest (as

defined in Section 377.11 of the California Code of Civil Procedure) with respect to the

decedent’s interest in the action or proceeding.

5. No other person has a superior right to commence the action or proceeding or to be

substituted for the decedent in the pending action or proceeding.

FACTS IN SUPPORT

6. William Harmon and SANDRA LEE HARMON were legally married at the time of

HARMON’s death, although the two had been estranged for more than 20 years. The two did

not communicate and had not for more than 20 years. On the other hand, SARAH GATLIFF

and her mother enjoyed intimate association on a daily basis and had for Ms. GATLIFF’s entire

adult life. HARMON raised GATLIFF as a single parent from the time GATLIFF was 12 years

old. HARMON and GATLIFF lived together at the time of HARMON’s death.

7. Accordingly, William Harmon is the successor-in-interest to HARMON’s claims. However,

William Harmon does not wish to become involved in any litigation related to his estranged

wife, so he assigned the right to bring the suit on behalf of HARMON to GATLIFF, by written

assignment filed with this Court. It includes assignment of the personal claim for wrongful death

or simply disavowal of this claim by William Harmon.

8. The assignment of the right to bring the survivor claim was voluntary and intentional, as

GATLIFF made it known to William Harmon that he owned the right to bring the suit and that


2 DECLARATION PURSUANT TO CCP §377.32

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

he was transferring that right to GATLIFF, who would solely receive the financial compensation

for the suit if successful. He understood and agreed.

9. If GATLIFF is denied the right to bring this suit, a great injustice will have been done as there

would be no accountability for the wrongful shooting of Ms. HARMON by the persons

responsible nor the COUNTY OF SAN MATEO and CITY OF HALF MOON BAY.

10. It was SARAH GATLIFF alone who fulfilled requirements for filing timely government

claims for the incident with the COUNTY OF SAN MATEO and CITY OF HALF MOON BAY

on her own behalf as well as her mothers’. William Harmon did not wish to proceed in this

matter from the very beginning and told GATLIFF she could proceed with the claim.

11. SARAH GATLIFF also has one sibling, Dustin Gatliff, who is the son of Ms. HARMON.

Similar to William Harmon, Dustin wishes to have nothing to do with any claims or lawsuits for

the incident. Further, Dustin will not sign any documents. Although both William Harmon and

Dustin Gatliff were given the opportunity to join the government claims and the suit, both

refused and failed to comply with the government claims requirements and did not

administratively exhaust the claim, leaving SARAH GATLIFF as the only person to have met

this obligation. Dustin lives outside the State of California and service is impractical and

infeasible.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California the foregoing is true

and correct.

Date: Nov. 15, 2021 ______________________________________ Sarah Gatliff




Documents

Case 3:21-cv-01463-VC Document 66 Filed 11/15/21 Page 1 of 22