a0 u 2 aa a4 16 u a9 20 22 23 2a 25 26 21 28 2 ) CHARLES PITTS. F I L E D Sw 800 Canty PO BOX 641452, 1 Francisco Co: arr Court SAN FRANCISCO CA. 94164 1415 368 2354 : PAKASAW@YAHOO.COM CLERK OF tri CORT In Pro Per on : Depiy Cae SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Case CGC-18-564775 CHARLES PITTS Plaintiff, o SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, CURITY MSC SOUTH, UNKNOW! AGENCY , DOES 1 to 30 Defendant(s) INCIDENT OCCURRED AT 525 5™ STREET SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA APRIL 4 2017 between 8:00 and 12 am 1) Mr. Pitts, the plaintiff alleges that shelter staff told him that he would only be allowed to enter MSC South Drop-In after the people who had gone on a smoke break had returned to the Drop-In and asked him to go back outside even though he was already inside the shelter. Mr. Pitts the plaintiff states that they eventually told him to come into the Drop-In, at which point a female security guard (female, heavyset, glasses) asked him in a combative way to empty out his pockets. Mr. Pitts , the plaintiff alleges that none of the security guards on duty had their ID badges on. 2.) Mr. Pitts , the plaintiff was waiting in line to use the showers at MSC South Drop In, Mr. Pitts , the plaintiff states that shelter staff let in a large group of clients, but alleges that shelter staff SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 110 2 3 a4 as 16 a ae 19 20 a 22 23 aa 26 27 28 ‘would not let him into the shelter because he did not say he was on a smoke break . Mr. Pitts, the plaintiff states that he only wanted to enter MSC South Drop In to use the showers. 3) Mr. Pits states that the security guard eventually called over a supervisor named David McCoy to get involved Mr. Pitts , the plaintiff alleges that Mr. MeCoy got in his face (approximately 4 inches from the client’s nose) and told him to take the things out of his pocket. Mr. Pitts states that David McCoy had his ID badge on backwards so his name could not be seen. Mr. Pitts alleges that when he asked Mr. McCoy to show him his ID, Mr. McCoy shoved his ID in his face (approximately 2 inches from his face). Mr. McCoy also allegedly challenged Mr. Pitts to a fight and said that they “Could throw blows outside”, 4.)Mr. Pits , the plaintiff alleges that Mr. McCoy said that he was going to DOS Mr. Pitts. Mr. Pitts said that he was never given a copy of any DOS paperwork and that nobody told him how he could get a copy of his paperwork. Mr. Pitts states that he then left the shelter. 5) Mr. Pitts, the plaintiff states that he repeated multiple times that he only wanted to go into ‘MSC South Drop In so he could use a shower, but that shelter staff kept repeating that he needed a TB test. 6) Mr. Pitts , the plaintiff alleges that there were two other shelter employees at MSC South. Drop In that also did not have ID badges on: African American woman, rectangle glasses, possible skin/bone disorder, employee at MSC for 8-10 years; Woman with caramel skin, dyed red hair PLAINTIFF ALLEGES 1) SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY were negligent in following the laws San Francisco administrative code 20.400 , San Francisco administrative code 6.80 SEC. 28.3. GROUNDS FOR DEBARMENT and the contract between the city and its contractors ST. VINCENT DE PAUL SOCIETY OF SAN FRANCISCO and UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE , injuring the plaintiff and violating the contracts as listed , SAN FRANCISCO. LIABILITY failure to train or monitor contracts , failure of city to enforce contracts , harassment , SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 21 || violation of shelter training manual , violations of standards of care , failure to train security staff, 2 ||failure to know or apply shelter training manual , defamation of character , violation of 3 |] tuberculosis policy , harassment ,violation of shelter training manual ,violation of standards of 4 |) care,, failure to train staff, violation of contract , protecting contractors regardless of behavior, 5 || conspiracy , fraud , gross negligence ¢ ||a) SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY and its agents SCOTT WALTON , CINDY WARD, JEFF KOISITSKY , CATHY PERDUE were negligent in allowing 8 || ST. VINCENT DE PAUL SOCIETY OF SAN FRANCISCO to violate its contract by not 9 |Jallowing clients to use the shelter grievance and hearing policy as required by its mandatory duty 10 |]imits contract 11 |/b) SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY and its agents SCOTT WALTON , 12 }| CINDY WARD, JEFF KOISITSKY , CATHY PERDUE were negligent by failure to monitor and 13 |} insure its contractors are properly trained including know policy and procedure ‘if its 14 |}c) SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY and its agents SCOTT WALTON , 1s ||CINDY WARD, JEFF KOISITSKY , CATHY PERDUE were negligent failure to monitor and 1¢ || insure its contractors follow the required training 17 ||d) SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY and its agents SCOTT WALTON , 18 || CINDY WARD, JEFF KOISITSKY , CATHY PERDUE were negligent failure to monitor and 19 | insure its contractors provide the services detailed in its contract 20 ||f) SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY and its agents SCOTT WALTON , CINDY WARD, JEFF KOISITSKY , CATHY PERDUE were negligent not following san 22 || Francisco administrative code 6.80 VIOLATIONS AND FALSE CLAIMS; DEBARMENT AND 23 || MONETARY PENALTIES. 24 25 |/g) San Francisco Administrative code 6.80, SEC. 20.402. SEC. 28.3. and case law make a clear 26 || mandatory duty for defendants UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE and ST, VINCENT DE 27 || PAUL SOCIETY OF SAN FRANCISCO to follow its contract and CITY AND COUNTY OF 28 || SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY , SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 310 n 12 33 4 15 16 a 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ST. VINCENT DE PAUL SOCIETY OF SAN FRANCISCO LIABILITY 2) ST. VINCENT DE PAUL SOCIETY OF SAN FRANCISCO were negligent in following the law ,San Francisco administrative code 20.400 and the contract between them and the city and county of San Francisco injuring the plaintift and violating the contract as listed below. Including Defamation of character, terrorist threat , assault , violation of tuberculosis policy , harassment , violations of shelter training manual violations of standards of care , failure to train staff , failure to know or apply shelter training manual , violation of contract , conspiracy , fraud, gross negligence were negligent in following the law San Francisco administrative code 20.400 and the contract between them and the city and county of San Francisco injuring the plaintiff and violating the contract a) ST. VINCENT DE PAUL SOCIETY OF SAN FRANCISCO shelter staff and its agents JOHN McQUEEN , CYNTHIA STOKES , TAMARA LINK provided false report to upper staff management and the shelter monitoring committee . b) ST. VINCENT DE PAUL SOCIETY OF SAN FRANCISCO and its agents JOHN McQUEEN several times violated the contract between CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY by violating 6-12 and 6-13 , of the shelter training manual by violating personal body space of plaintiff. The male staff worker known as John McQueen . ©) ST. VINCENT DE PAUL SOCIETY OF SAN FRANCISCO and its agent JOHN MeQUEEN violated standards of care , shelter training manual regarding de-escalation training and committed a terrorist threat male staff said “we could throw blows” implying violence towards plaintiff.” d) ST. VINCENT DE PAUL SOCIETY OF SAN FRANCISCO Violated the contract between the CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY , and its agents ALEJANDO NUNO LESSY BENEDITY that the clients of the drop in have a right to the shelter grievance policy . SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 410 a 12 13 rr] 15 16 uw ae as 20 a 22 23 28 25 26 2 28 ¢) ST. VINCENT DE PAUL SOCIETY OF SAN FRANCISCO Senior shelter staff sent out documents backing the shelter workers without reviewirig the video which was contrary to the video f) ST. VINCENT DE PAUL SOCIETY OF SAN FRANCISCO an its agents JOHN McQUEEN , CYNTHIA STOKES , TAMARA LINK obstructed access to services by miss applying tuberculosis policy. ST. VINCENT DE PAUL SOCIETY OF SAN FRANCISCO did not follow San Francisco Tuberculosis policy deny plaintiff usage g) ST. VINCENT DE PAUL SOCIETY OF SAN FRANCISCO and its agents JOHN McQUEEN , CYNTHIA STOKES , TAMARA LINK slandered plaintiffs name and reputation saying and documenting things plaintiff did not do UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE LIABILITY 3) UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE were negligent in following the law ,San Francisco administrative code 20.400 and the contract between them and the city and county of San Francisco injuring the plaintiff and violating the contract as listed below UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE LIABILITY Harassment violation of shelter training manual ;violations of standards of care ,Failure to train seeurity staff failure to know or apply shelter ‘training manual, Violation of contract , conspiracy , fraud , gross negligence 2) UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE and its agents SHAVEKA THOMAS , DENISE AKAMAERE , JULIA MURILLO did not follow the standards of care San Francisco administrative code or its contract by not wearing name tags ' b) UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE and its agents SHAVEKA THOMAS , DENISE AKAMAERE , JULIA MURILLO did not follow training required as contract requires ¢) UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE and its agents SHAVEKA THOMAS , DENISE AKAMAERE , JULIA MURILLO are required to have the same trading as the staff at the locations they are sent to work of which they violated 4) UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE and its agents SHAVEKA THOMAS , DENISE AKAMAERE , JULIA MURILLO staff did not allow access the first time because I said I was T SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 520 a 12 33 a4 a5 16 ae 19 20 aa 22 23 24 28 26 28 didn't take a smoke break violation of standards of care. ¢) UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE and its agents SHAVEKA THOMAS , DENISE, AKAMAERE , JULIA MURILLO did not follow its own training regarding metal detectors requiring the plaintiff to go threw the metal detector 7 times f) UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE and its agents SHAVEKA THOMAS , DENISE AKAMAERE , JULIA MURILLO harassed plaintiff requiring the plaintiff to go threw the metal detector 7 times g) UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE and its agents SHAVEKA THOMAS , DENISE AKAMAERE , JULIA MURILLO provided false report to upper staff management h ) UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE and its agents SHAVEKA THOMAS , DENISE AKAMAERE , JULIA MURILLO conspired to create false report . i) UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE and agents SHAVEKA THOMAS , DENISE AKAMAERE Julia Murillo, slandered , obstructed third party access to services |j) UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE and agents SHAVEKA THOMAS , DENISE AKAMAERE , Julia Murillo did not properly train staff according to contact THIRD PARTY BENEFACTOR 1) The plantiff is a their party benefactor. Please take judicial notice of law below California Code, Civil Code - CIV § 1559 When contract for benefit of third person may be enforced. A contract, made expressly for the benefit of a third person, may be enforced by him at any time before the parties thereto rescind it GOVERNMENTS LIABILITY GOVERNMENT CODE 815.2, (@) A public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment if the act or omission would, apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of action against that employee or his personal SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 610 aa aw 13 as as 16 a 18 19 20 2a 22 23 25 26 27 28 representative, CA GOVERNMENT CODE 815.4. A public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by a tortious act or omission of an independent contractor of the public entity to the same extent that the public entity would be subject to such liability if it were a private person. Nothing in this section subjects a public entity to liability for the act or omission of an independent contractor if the public entity would not have been liable for the injury had the act or omission been that of an employee of the | public entity. CA GOVERNMENT CODE - GOV 815.6. Where a public entity is under a mandatory duty imposed by an enactment that is designed to protect against the risk of a particular kind of injury, the public entity is liable for an injury of ‘that kind proximately caused by its failure to discharge the duty unless the public entity establishes that it exercised reasonable diligence to discharge the duty. MANDATORY DUTY The contract between the city and county of San Francisco and ST. VINCENT DE PAUL SOCIETY OF SAN FRANCISCO and UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE contract creates one of several mandatory duties to follow manuals and training procedures regarding several situation that happened on $25 STH STREET SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA , APRIL 42017 between 8:00 and 12 am 1) San Francisco Administrative code SEC. 20.402. make a clear mandatory duty for defendants UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE and ST. VINCENT DE PAUL SOCIETY OF SAN FRANCISCO to follow its contracts and CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY , to monitor its contracts along with additional provided case law SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 110 u a 13 u 16 un 18 20 aa 22 23 24 25 26 2 28 |San Francisco administrative code SEC. 20.402, PURPOSE. The purpose of this Chapter is to establish standards of care ("shelter operating standards") that the City must include in contracts with shelters and to ensure that the City takes corrective enforcement measures against shelter operators who fail to comply with shelter operating standards, 2.) San Francisco Administrative code SEC. 28.3. make a clear mandatory duty for defendants UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE and ST. VINCENT DE PAUL SOCIETY OF SAN FRANCISCO to follow its contracts and CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY , to monitor its contracts along with additional provided case law SEC. 28.3. GROUNDS FOR DEBARMENT. A charging official shall issue an Order of Debarment for any contractor who the hearing officer, based on evidence presented, finds to have engaged in any willful misconduct with respect to any City bid, request for qualifications, request for proposals, purchase order and/or contract. Such willful misconduct ‘may include, but need not be limited to the following: (a) submission of false information in response to an advertisement or invitation for bids or quotes, a request for qualifications or a request for proposals; (6) failure to comply with the terms of a contract or with provisions of this Administrative Code; (0) a pattern and practice of disregarding or repudiating terms or conditions of City contracts, including without limitation repeated unexcused delays and poor petformance; (d) failure to abide by any rules and/or regulations adopted Pursuant to the San Francisco Municipal Codes; (e) submission of false claims as defined in this Administrative Code, Chapter 6, Article V; (f) a verdict, SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT20 an 22 23 24 26 27 2a judgment, settlement, stipulation or plea agreement establishing the contractor's violation of any civil or criminal law against any government entity relevant to the contractor's ability or capacity honestly to perform under or comply with the terms and conditions of a City contract; and/or (g) collusion in obtaining award of any City contract, or payment or ipproval thereunder. 3.) San Francisco Administrative code 6.80, make a clear mandatory duty for defendants UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE and ST. VINCENT DE PAUL SOCIETY OF SAN FRANCISCO to follow its contract and CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY , to monitor its contracts SEC. 6.80. VIOLATIONS AND FALSE CLAIMS; DEBARMENT AND MONETARY PENALTIES. Any Contractor, subcontractor, supplier, consultant or subconsultant who fails to comply with the terms of its contract with the City; or who violates any provision of this Chapter 6; or who fails to abide by any rules and/or regulations adopted pursuant to this Chapter 6; or who submits false claims; or who has violated against any government entity a civil or criminal law relevant to its ability to perform under or comply with the terms and conditions of a contract with the City, may be declared an irresponsible Bidder or an unqualified consultant and debarred according to the procedures set forth in Chapter 28 of ‘this Administrative Code. Additionally, any Contractor, subcontractor, supplier, consultant or subconsultant who submits a false claim to the City may also be subject to monetary penalties, investigation and prosecution as described below. SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINTIn the event that such a violation of this Chapter 6, including the submission 2 of one or more false claims, comes to the attention of a responsible Department 3 Head or board or commission, the Department Head must investigate the matter. The Department Head must report the findings of any such investigation by letter to the Board of Supervisors within 30 days of the completion of the investigation. The investigation letter to the Board of Supervisors must state the e name of the Contractor, subcontractor, supplier, consultant or subconsultant; 9 the nature of the violation; the results of the investigation; and the Department 7 Head's plan for addressing the violation, if any. A hearing shall also be called in n the Audit Committee of the Board of Supervisors to report on this investigation. 32 a3 ** ll4) B) STATE DEPT. OF STATE HOSPITALS v. SUPERIOR COURT 61 Cal.Ath 339 (2015) 188 Cal. Rptr. 3d 309 349 P.3d 1013 ( page 348 and 349 ) (4) Courts have delineated what is necessary to establish a mandatory duty. "First and a5 16 foremost, .. the enactment at issue [must] be obligatory, rather than merely discretionary or permissive, in its directions to the public entity; it must require, rather as than merely authorize or permit, that a particular action be taken or not taken." Haggis v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 22 Cal.4th 490, 498 [93 Cal.Rptr.2d 327, 993 P.2d 983] (Haggis).) "It is not enough, moreover, that the public entity or officer have been 20 a 2 under an obligation to perform a function if the function itself involves the exercise of o discretion." (Ibid,, italics added.) Moreover, "[cJourts have ... [found] a mandatory duty aa only if the enactment ‘affirmatively imposes the duty and provides implementing ‘guidelines."" (Guzman v. County of Monterey (2009) 46 Cal.4th 887, 898 [95 Cal.Rptr.3d 183, 209 P.3d 89] (Guzman), """[T]he mandatory nature of the duty must be phrased in explicit and forceful language." [Citation.] "It is not enough that some 26 21 28 statute contains mandatory language. [61 Cal.4th 349] In order to recover plaintiffs SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 10a 2 a a4 45 16 6) have to show that there is some specific statutory mandate that was violated by the [public entity]...."" [Citations.]” (Id. at pp. 910-911.) (5) Whether an enactment imposes "a mandatory duty, rather than a mere obligation to perform a discretionary function, is a question of statutory interpretation for the courts." (Creason, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 631.) The enactment's "language ‘is, of course, a most important guide in determining legislative intent, [but] there are unquestionably instances in which other factors will indicate that apparent obligatory language was not intended to foreclose a governmental entity's or officer's exercise of discretion." (Haggis, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 499.) For example, the word "shall" is "mandatory" for Purposes of the Welfare and Institutions Code. (§ 15; Gov. Code, § 14 [same].) "However, as we. have emphasized, this term's inclusion in an enactment does not necessarily create a mandatory duty..." within the meaning of Government Code section 815.6. (Guzman, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 899.) ‘ Gai THOMPSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, y. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, Defendant and Respondent. ( Page 54) C. Analysis On appeal, owner again urges that “the duty involved was mandatory and not discretionary.” 1. Government Tort Liability: Based on Statute} a.—b.7 2. Failure to Discharge a Mandatory Duty—Government Code Section 815.6 Government Code section 815.6 provides: “Where a public entity is under a mandatory duty imposed by an enactment that is designed to protect against the SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1110 u 13 4a as 16 uv 18 as a 22 23 24 25 26 21 28 risk of a particular kind of injury, the public entity is liable for an injury of that kind proximately caused by its failure to discharge the duty unless the public entity establishes that it exercised reasonable diligence to discharge the duty.” Thus, “Government Code section 815.6 contains a three-pronged test for determining whether liability may be imposed on a public entity: (D) an enactment must impose a mandatory, not discretionary, duty (Morris v. County of Marin (1977) 18 Cal.3d 901, 907-909 [136 Cal.Rptr. 251, 559 P.2d 606]); (2) the enactment must intend to protect against the kind of risk of injury suffered by the party asserting section 815.6 as a basis for liability (see Shelton v. City of Westminster (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 610, 619-620 [188 Cal.Rptr. 205]; Hecton v. People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 653, 656 [130 Cal.Rptr. 230]); and (3) breach of the mandatory duty must be a proximate cause of the injury suffered. (See Whitcombe v. County of Yolo (1977) 73 Cal. App.3d 698, 707-708 [141 CaL.Rptr. 189]; see generally Van Alstyne, Cal. Government Tort Liability Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 1980) §§ 2.41-2.48, pp. 93-107)” (State of California v. ‘Superior Court (Perry) (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 848, 854, 197 Cal.Rptr. 914.) (PAGE 56-57) The Supreme Court has noted that “there is no simple, mechanical test for determining whether a provision should be given ‘directory’ or ‘mandatory’ effect. ‘In order to determiite whether a particular statutory provision . is mandatory or directory, the court, as in all cases of statutory construction and interpretation, must ascertain the legislative intent. In the SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1210 re a2 a3 ua 18 16 a 18 as 20 2a 22 23 24 25 26 21 28 e absence of express language, the intent must be gathered from the terms of the statute construed asa whole, from the nature and character of the act to be done, and from the consequences which would follow the doing or failure to do the Particular act at the required time, [Citation.] When the object is to subserve ‘some public purpose, the provision may be held directory or mandatory as will best accomplish that purpose [citation].’” (Morris v. County of Marin, supra, 18 Cal.3d 901, 909-910, 136 Cal.Rptr. 251, 559 P.2d 606.) THIRD PARTY BENEFACTOR 1) The contract between the city and county of San Francisco makes it clear its for a homeless person the city and county of San Francisco and ST. VINCENT DE PAUL SOCIETY OF SAN FRANCISCO goes on to list on 7 pages regarding how to treat the clients and other requirements that benefit the “TARGET POPULATION” SOUZA v. WESTLANDS WATER DIST., 135 Cal.App.4th 879 (2006) page 891 “ ‘The test for determining whether a contract was made for the benefit of a third person is whether an intent to benefit a third person appears from the terms of the contract. [Citation.] If the terms of the contract necessarily require the promisor to confer a benefit on a third person, then the contract, and hence the parties thereto, contemplate a benefit to the third person. The parties are presumed to intend the consequences of a performance of the contract.’ [Citation.]” (Prouty v. Gores Technology Group, supra, 121 Cal.App-tth at p. 1232, 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 178.) A party need not show that it was intended to benefit as an individual and may Prevail by showing that it is a member of a class the parties intended to benefit. (Ibid.) At the same time, it is not enough that the third party would incidentally SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1310 n 2 13 uM 15 16 ay Fry as 20 a 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 have benefited from performance. (Martinez v. Socoma Companies, Inc. (1974) LI Cal.3d 394, 406, 113 Cal.Rptr. 585, 521 P.2d 841; Bancomer S.A. v. Superior Court (1996) 44 Cal_App.4th 1450, 1459, 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 435.) “The circumstance that a literal contract interpretation would result in a benefit to the third party is not enough to entitle that party to demand enforcement. The contracting parties must have intended to confer a benefit on the third party.” (Neverkovec v. Fredericks (1999) 74 Cal. App.4th 337, 348, 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 856.) In determining whether the contract contemplates a benefit to the third party, the court must read ‘the contract in light of the circumstances in which the parties entered into it. (Garcia v. Truck Ins. Exchange (1984) 36 Cal.3d 426, 437, 204 Cal.Rptr. 435, 682 P.2d 1100.) 4) As the proximate result of the acts alleged ST. VINCENT DE PAUL SOCIETY OF SAN FRANCISCO and CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY conduct was intentional and malicious and done for the purpose of causing plaintiff to suffer humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress. Defendant ST. VINCENT DE PAUL SOCIETY OF SAN FRANCISCO and CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY conduct in confirming and ratifying that conduct ‘was done with knowledge that plaintiff's emotional and physical distress would thereby increase, and was done with a wanton and reckless disregard of the consequences to plaintiff . 5 ) On or about September 7 2017 plaintiff Charles Pitts delivered a claim to defendants CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY through its comptroller / law division for the losses, and damages suffered and incurred by him by reason of the above- described occurrences, all in compliance with the requirements of Section 905 of the Government Code. A copy of the claim is attached hereto as Exhibit d and made a part hereof. SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1410 an 12 a3 ry 4s 16 Fry 19 20 22 2a 24 25 26 27 20 6) Defendants CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY AND THE CITY AND COUNTY LEGAL DEPARTMENT did not respond to claim . WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment against defendant as follows: For general damages for severe 1) emotional distress and mental suffering according to proof; 2.) For medical and related expenses according to proof . 3) City of san Francisco monitor and follow san Francisco administrative code 20.400 and issue yearly reports regarding its findings and post on a easy and convent place to find online 4.) staff of all city run shelters and drop-ins be certified in knowing the training they are given 5) staff of all shelters and drop-ins be blocked from working at as shelter or drop in unless they pass a physiological profile that would not harm shelter or drop-in client’s yearly 6) City of San Francisco allow staff of the shelter monitoring committee to acquire and review ‘video of shelters in common areas and any and all places video are recorded . 7) Video equipment in shelters and drop-ins be upgraded every 2 years and kept fully functional 8) shelter and drop-in staff’ name tags have image and name on both sides of identification card 9}) San Francisco comptroller monitor and enforce contracts of security that work at shelters and drop-ins . 10) CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY create a investigation department that investigates takes complaints from homeless and citizens that has full scope to investigate and investigate any and all homeless services 11) For costs of suit herein incurred SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1510 a 2 13 14 16 w ae 19 20 22 a 2a 25 26 27 28 “12_) loss of access of services 13 )For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper. 1, CHARLES PITTS am the plaintiff in the above-entitled action. Ihave read the foregoing complaint and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein stated on information and belief, and, as to those matters, I believe it to be true. I CHARLES PITTS declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct, AUGUS 19 CHARLES PITTS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 16CLAIM AGAINST + CITY AND COUNTY = SAN FRANCISCO Before completing this form please read the instructions on the back. Untimely claims will be returned. Please submit this form and supporting documentation to the Controller's Office, Claims Division, 1390 Market Street, 7" Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102 in person or by mail. * =REQUIRED _** = REQUIRED IF KNOWN [claimant’s Name and Home Address (Pleaso Print Gloarh) *CHARLES PITTS PO BOX 641452 city SAN FRANCISCO Telephone {5 apa.2584 State CA_Zip 94164 Telephone = 2. Send Official Notices and Correspondence to: State Zip 4 Social Socurity Number 3. Date of Birth 350-52-7221 08/16/1971 ‘5. Date of incident * 04/04/2017 [6, Time of incident vatorra [* between 8 and 12am 7, Location of incident or Accident “* 825 BRYANT MSC South Drop In '8, Claimant Vehicle License Plate &, Type, Mileage, and Year * SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENTS ‘8. Basis of Claim. State in detal all facts and circumstances of the incident. dently all persone, entities, property and Gily departments involved, State why you believe the City is responsible for the alleged injury, property damage or loss. Name, (0. Number and Cy Bapariment of Cy Employee who allegedly caused injury or loss “Type of Gy Vehicle Vehicle License Number and Bus or Tain Number [Cuett Kositsky 10, Description of Claimant's injury, property damage or loss emotional duress , loss of access to services 11, Amount of Claimant's property damage or loss and method of computation. Attach supporting documentation. (See Insiuctions) irews. emotional duress ¢ 100,000.00 loss of access to service ¢ 50,000.00 defamation of character ¢ 100,000.00 a TOTAL AMOUNT $ 250,000.00 _ ‘Court Jurisdiction: Limited (up to $25,000) Unlimited (over $25,000) CRIMINAL PENALTY FOR PRESENTING A FALSE OR FRAUDULENT CLAIM IS IMPRISONMENT OR FINE OR BOTH. (PENAL CODE §72) ‘Adress Telephone 2. aS * Do Not Waite In This Spagt IHS ae ( on aga 8 slo ignature of Claimant or Representative Dato _ gist CHARLES PITTS SELF evo Ld Print Namo Raaonaip gala 9442 ACOMPLETEDCL# RM AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATIC ST BE FILED WITH THE CONTROLLER'S OFFICE, CLA. (gu, /ISION, 1390 MARKET STREET, 7THFL AN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-5402 INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING A CLAIM Failure to complete all sections of the Claim form will delay the processing of your claim and result in the return or denial of your claim. Claimant’s Name, Address and Telephone-State the full name, mailing address, and telephone numbers of the person claiming personal injury, damage or loss. Official Notices and Correspondence-Provide the name, mailing address, and telephone numbers of the person to whom al official notices and other correspondence should be sent, if other than claimant. This official contact person can be the claimant or a representative ofthe claimant. If this section is completed, all official notices and correspondence will be sent to the person listed, Date of Birth-State claimant's date of bith including month, day, and year. Social Security Number-State the claimant's social security number. The Federal Government requires the City to report settlements for present or future medical care. This information will be kept confidential and only shared with the Federal Government. The City is unable to process payment without this information. Date of Incident-State the exact month, day, and year of the incident giving rise to the claim, Time of Incident-State the exact time, including AM. or P.M, of the incident giving rise fo the claim. Location of Incident of Accident-Include the city and exact street address or intersection where the incident occurred. Claimant Vehicle License Plate Number-Please provide license plate number of vehicle driven by ciaimant or in which Claimant was a passenger. Basis of Clalm-State in detail all facts supporting your claim, including all facts and circumstances of the incident, all alleged injuries, property damage and loss, all persons, entities, property and City departments involved, and why you believe the City is responsible for the alleged injury, property damage or loss. In the appropriate boxes, provide the name, \.D. number and City department of the City employee(s) who allegedly caused the injury or property damage, the type of City vehicle involved (if any), and the license and number of the City vehicle involved (if any). For accidents involving a bus or light rail vehicle, please provide the line and vehicte number. ; 10. Description of injury, Property Damage or Loss-Provide in full detail a description of the injury, property damage or loss that allegedly resulted from the incident. If claimant's vehicle was involved, provide the make, model, mileage, and year. You may attach additional material 11. Amount of Loss and Method of Computation-State the total amount of money you claim in damages. Provide a breakdown of each item of damages and how that amount was computed. You may include future, anticipated expenses or losses. Please attach copies of al bills, receipts and repair estimates. f the claim involves property damage, please Provide two repair estimates. The Government Code provides that if the claim is for less than $10,000, the claimant must State the total amount claimed and the basis of this computation. If the claim exceeds $10,000, no dollar amount need be provided, but the claimant must indicate the applicable court jurisdiction. Limited civil jurisdiction cases are those involving damages under $25,000; untimited civil jurisdiction cases are those involving damages of $25,000 or more. 12, Witnesses-State the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of any persons who witnessed the incident. Attach lst of additional names if necessary. 13. Signature of Claimant or Representative-Please sign and date. Print name of signatory and relationship to claimant ‘The claim must be signed by the claimant or by the official representative of the claimant. Claims for death or injury to persons or damage to personal property must be filed within six months after the incident iving rise to the claim. All other claims must be filed within one year. Personal service of claims can be accomplished during regular business hours, Monday through Friday (excluding County holidays). If you want a time stamped copy of your claim retumed to you, please present an original and copy of the claim, and include a setf-addressed stamped envelope. For information onthe status of your claim, please call the appicable number listed below: WATER DEPARTMENT 654-9900 PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 554-3900 Puc SEWER. 554.9952 MUNICIPAL RAILWAY 584.9900 S.F.INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (650) 821-5073 DEPT. OF PUBLICWORKS 554.3952 OTHER DEPARTMENTS 554-9900 CONTROLLER'S CLAIMOIVISION 554-3839, DEPT, OF BLOG. INSPECTION 654-3052 We Do Not Accept claims forthe folowing agencies: 1. HOUSING AUTHORITY 1818 Egbert Avenue, SF, CA 94124 (418) 718-3280 2. SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL OISTRICT 585 Frankin Street, 2nd Fl, SF,CA,94102 (415) 241-8000 3. SANFRANCISCO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT 33 Gough Street, SF, CA 94103 (415) 241-2234 Please be advised that the Cty and County of San Francisco may offset against a claim any amounts owed bythe claimant, including unpaid hospital is, lupaid parking and tac tickets and wellare reimbursements or overpayments,POS-050/EFS-050 jwwwe: CHARLES PITTS |sraccr anoness: PO BOX 641452 lary. SAN FRANCISCO S”ATE CA 2eco0E: 4164 [TaPHONENO: 1 415 968 2954 PmcH0. leat aooness: PAKASAW@ YAHOO.COM lartonney oa ane: CHARLES PITTS, |SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF staceracoress: 400 MCALLISTER Jervauozecove: SAN FRANCISCO 94102 ‘sewtnae: SAN FRNCISCO SUPERIOR COURT SMa PLAINTIFFIPETITIONER: CHARLES PITTS. Cac-18-564775 DEFENDANTIRESPONDENT: CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO “RON OFFCER PROOF OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE Depa 1. am atleast 18 years od. &. My residence or business address is (speci P.O. BOX 641452, ae SAN FRANCISCO Capsies . My electronic sence adios ie (speci) PkkASAWevanoo.com “PO 2. | electronically served the folowing documents (exact titles): second amended complant (C2) The documents served are listed in an attachment. (Form POS-050(DVEFS-050(D) may be used for this purpose.) 8. electronically served the documents listed in 2 as follows: ‘a. Name of person served: Rosenbiit, Renee (On behaif of (name or names of parties represented, if person served is an attorney): city and county of san francisco /msc south Electronic service address of person served : Renee. Rosenblt@sfcityatty.org c. On (date): August 16, 2019 [=] The documents listed in tem 2 were served electronically on the persons and in the manner described in an attachment (Form POS-060{PVEFS-050(P) may be used for ths purpose.) Date: 8 16 2019 | declare under penalty of perjury undor the awe of he State of California thatthe forego is tue and correct. CHARLES PITTS, > CPE GR PANT EOF DEG TERNS Bea Femtemenat oneal ve PROOF OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE tru cc 281 ‘865 tavS050 fae, Pebrary 1, 2017) (Proof of Service/Electronic Filing and Service) fencer gor FoF Your protseton aa privacy, OBES prOBS We Clos Shiceormhetton stersnttcsnimerineionm nn) WSARWRST OS [Bava eis eT ied