Case 5:19-cv-02494-PA-SP Document 1 Filed 12/27/19 Page 1 of 73 Page ID #:1
`
`f~~',,,
`.~.
`
`C1E
`
`,-,
`FILED
`I .S. DISTRICT COURT
`
`~~ 2 7 201
`
`R~~ 's ~ ,~~~~
`DEPUiY
`
`VINCENT W. SHACK
`64337 DORAL DR.
`DESERT HOT SPRINGS, CA 92240
`(760) 218-9777
`vgreengolf@aol.com
`
`1 2 3
`
`l5 q
`
`5
`
`VINCENT W. SHACK, IN PRO PER
`
`~ l 6
`
`r~V 9- ~9~- ~
`
`~c
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`for the
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`VINCENT W. SHACK,
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`No. Case Number
`
`Transfer of Case from the state of
`California to Federal Court
`
`NBC UNIVERSAL MEDIA, LLC~tr
`
`IMG WORLDWIDE, INC,
`LADIES PROFESSIONAL GOLF
`ASSOCIATION,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA INC., AND DOES 1 TO
`~~
`
`Defendant.
`
`DEMAND FOR
`
`~:.
`
`~°
`DEC 2 7 219
`
`~5 District Court
`~ni ART 4612
`
`The plaintiff alleges misuse of the United States Constitutional First Amendment
`
`"freedom of speech" through the utilization of the Strategic Lawsuits Against Public
`
`Participation," (SLAPP) civil code 425.16 by the named defendants. Although the
`
`Superior Court tentative ruling warned the defendants the SLAPP motion was
`
`premature and should not be filed against a Cause of Action. The plaintiff indicates
`
`being denied Leave from the Fourth (4th) District Court of Appeal which would have
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`7 8 9
`
`io
`
`it
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`,~
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`?g
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-02494-PA-SP Document 1 Filed 12/27/19 Page 2 of 73 Page ID #:2
`
`permitted the State California General Counsel to gain proper jurisdiction to review the
`
`plaintiff's Victim Government Claim filing. The plaintiff also alleges intentional torts,
`
`violent criminal act of physical battery at the hands of the defendant, infliction of
`
`emotional distress, deceit, and nuisance, all of which resulted in a "violation of
`
`Plaintiff's Civil Rights (`Singled Out'). The intentional torts were dismissed as a result
`
`of the utilization of the SLAPP motion. The element of battery and personal injury was
`
`never properly disposed of.
`
`I. JURISDICTION
`
`1. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in that the
`
`controversy arises under the United States Constitution. The district courts shall have
`
`original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties
`
`of the United States. Each and all of the acts (or threats of acts) alleged herein were
`
`done by defendants, or their officers, agents, and employees, under color and pretense
`
`of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs and usages of the NBC et al.
`
`2. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because a substantial part of
`
`the event giving rise to the claims in this action occurred in this district.
`
`III. PARTIES
`
`3. Plaintiff's name is Vincent W. Shack. Plaintiff resides at: 64337 Doral Drive Desert
`
`Hot Springs, California 92240
`
`4. Defendant names are
`
`IMG WORLDWIDE & LPGA Paul V. Wayne, Esq. Tharpe &Howell 15250 Ventura
`
`Boulevard, Ninth Floor Sherman Oaks, California 91403-3221
`
`SAMSLJNG AMERICA Wesley D. Hellerud, Esq. KINKLE, RODIGER AND
`
`SPRIGGS 3333 Fourteen Street Riverside, CA 92501
`
`NBC UNIVERSAL MEDIA GROUP Paul K. Schriffer, Esq. P.K. SCHRIEFFER, LLP
`
`100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 1100 West Covina, CA 91791
`LADIES PREFESSIONAL GOLF ASSOCIATION Eric Bruce Kunkel, Esq. Tharpe
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6
`
`8 9
`
`10
`
`it
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`l~
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`2~
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-02494-PA-SP Document 1 Filed 12/27/19 Page 3 of 73 Page ID #:3
`
`& Howell, LLP 15250 Ventura Blvd., 9th Floor Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
`
`IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`1
`
`On October 11, 2007, Mr. Vincent Shack purchased tickets to attend a professional
`
`golfing event at the 2007 Samsung World Championship at the Bighorn Country Club
`
`in Palm Desert, California.
`
`2
`
`Mr. Shack alleges on the 18th hole of the green after an errant tee-shot he moved one
`
`or two steps to clear the path so the play could continue. As Shack moved out of the
`
`path of the errant ball, Dan Beard struck Shack with either his camera or forearm and
`
`"spewed derogatory language toward" Shack. Shack was "visibly shaken and suffered
`
`immediate and serious injury" to his "neck area, among other physical and mental
`
`injuries."
`
`3
`
`Shack further alleged that at the end of the day tournament security personnel
`
`approached him and informed him that Beard had filed a complaint alleging Shack had
`
`threatened him. Beard initially provided a false statement to the police (EXHIBIT A)
`
`where he indicates the plaintiff stated he would cut him. Beard pointed to Shack as he
`
`was walked towards the clubhouse to report he had been battered by Beard. The police
`
`immediately pursued Shack and asked that he empty his pockets. Shack willingly
`
`emptied all his pockets and no weapon was observed. The police returned to Beard and
`
`informed him Shack did not have a weapon. Beard then changed his story and said he
`
`really didn't hear Shack say he had a knife.
`
`Shack then sought out and spoke with the head of security for the tournament, who
`
`informed him that no charges would be filed and he was free to attend the tournament
`
`on the following day, October 12.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6
`
`8 9
`
`to
`
`ii
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`1~
`
`18
`
`19
`
`Zo
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-02494-PA-SP Document 1 Filed 12/27/19 Page 4 of 73 Page ID #:4
`
`On October 12 when Shack attempted to purchase a ticket and to enter the tournament
`
`he was denied.
`
`0
`
`Police officers "removed" him from the tournament "in a manner that was
`
`unnecessarily aggressive, demeaning and demoralizing. These humiliating and
`
`debasing acts were committed in front of the golf community," which Shack relied
`
`upon for "professional opportunities."
`
`~/
`
`Shack alleged his forcible removal from the tournament on October 12 caused him
`
`"great embarrassment and emotional distress," and described defendants"' conduct on
`
`October 12" as "equally if not more outrageous" than Beard's act of striking him in the
`
`neck and spewing derogatory comments toward him on October 11.
`
`In addition, on October 12, tournament personnel and security "specifically told"
`
`Shack that IMG and Bighorn "did not want him" at the tournament.
`
`g
`
`0
`
`Shack alleged that, in refusing him entry to the tournament on October 12, defendants
`
`"failed to act reasonably, prudently and in good faith." Shack also alleged that Beard
`
`and the other defendants, including IMG, the LPGA, NBC, and Samsung, falsely
`
`reported to police andlor tournament security personnel that Shack threatened Beard as
`
`a result of these reports, Shack was refused entry into the tournament on October 12
`
`and was forcibly removed by police officers in a manner that was "unnecessarily
`
`aggressive, demeaning and demoralizing"; and, finally, these actions humiliated Shack
`
`in front of the golfing community upon which he relies for "professional opportunities.
`
`10
`
`On February 04, 2009 after three attempts to resolve the issue with the defendants
`
`including one attempt by letter of performance written by California barred Attorney
`
`Terry Lehr which was flatly ignored. Mr. Shack then filed a lawsuit against six
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6
`
`8 9
`
`io
`
`li
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`l~
`
`18
`
`19
`
`Zo
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`2~
`
`28
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-02494-PA-SP Document 1 Filed 12/27/19 Page 5 of 73 Page ID #:5
`
`defendants (Dan Beard (camera man) IMG Worldwide, Inc. (IMG), Ladies
`
`Professional Golf Association (the LPGA), NBC Universal, Inc. (NBC), Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc. (Samsung), and Bighorn Properties, Inc. (Bighorn).
`
`1 1
`
`Shack alleged the six defendants were the agents or employees of each other, and the
`
`five "entity defendants" were in some manner responsible for Beard's "outrageous
`
`battery" and for their own actions in reporting to police and tournament security
`
`personnel that Shack threatened Beard.
`
`12
`
`Shack indicates during a Superior Court hearing with Judge Evans. Judge Evans gave
`
`Shack leave to amend the first complaint to clarify the liability of the defendants.
`
`During Shack's leave Beard's attorney filed SLAPP motion.
`
`14
`
`13
`
`The motion went unopposed by the plaintiff while on leave as given by the Courts to
`
`submit a second amendment civil complaint clarifying the liability of the defendants
`
`(Demurrer of the defendants).
`
`15
`
`During the time of Shack's permitted leave; the court granted Beard's (the 6th
`
`defendant) motion for SLAPP.
`
`16
`
`Shack requested an ex parte hearing to address Beard's SLAPP suit motion which had
`
`been granted by the Superior Court Judge.
`
`17
`
`The courts denied the plaintiff s request for the ex parte hearing although the SLAPP
`motion ruling was rendered while the plaintiff was placed on leave to demurrer.
`
`After realizing the court's granting the defendant Bearden SLAPP motion all other
`
`18
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6
`
`8 9
`
`10
`
`ii
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`l~
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-02494-PA-SP Document 1 Filed 12/27/19 Page 6 of 73 Page ID #:6
`
`defendants filed and were granted.
`
`19
`
`IMG and the LPGA filed a SLAPP motion which was granted as to Shack's first
`
`amended complaint, while NBC and Samsung later filed separate SLAPP motions.
`
`Clearly showing all parties were acting in concert to avoid liability of the defendant
`
`Beard SLAPP motion as defined in paragraph 15 and18.
`
`Judge Evans advised the defendants their SLAPP motion was premature in that it
`
`2~
`
`should not be filed against a Cause of Action.
`
`21
`
`Shack argued IMG, the LPGA, NBC, and Samsung failed to meet their initial burdens
`
`of demonstrating that his causes of action against them for "general negligence" and
`
`"intentional tort" arose from protected activity.
`
`22
`
`Shack pointed out that Beard's alleged act of striking him in the neck did not constitute
`
`protected speech or petitioning activity.
`
`~~j
`
`Shack filed a response indicating his first and second amended complaints, Shack
`
`generally alleged that IMG, the LPGA, NBC, and Samsung were responsible in some
`
`manner for Beard's "outrageous battery" or act of striking him in the neck.
`
`July 21, 2010 plaintiff filed a motion to the State of California Fourth District of
`
`Appeal requesting extension of time to file a brief against NBC Universal, Inc et al.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`July 29, 2010 the State of California Fourth District of Appeal denied the extension
`request. The rationale was the following: no further extensions will be granted on the
`grounds of this application, the length of the record, the number and complexity of
`
`issues, counsel's newness to the case, the existence of other time-limited
`
`1 2 3 4 s 6
`
`8 9
`
`to
`
`it
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-02494-PA-SP Document 1 Filed 12/27/19 Page 7 of 73 Page ID #:7
`
`commitments, or any vacation.
`
`~~
`
`March 04, 2011, the plaintiff received a response from the State of California Fourth
`
`District of Appeal upholding the trial courts SLAPP suit decision. During oral
`
`argument the appellant judge (Justice King) asked the respondents, "why is this not a
`
`case for battery?"
`
`2~
`
`May 11, 2011, the plaintiff received a response from the Supreme Court of California
`
`with his petition for review being denied. EXHIBIT B
`
`September O1, 2011 the plaintiff filed the VCGCB and was advised the Victim
`
`Government Claim is to be filed with the offending government entity the, Fourth
`
`District Court of Appeal, Division two (2) Riverside, California who will forward it to
`
`the state general counsel. EXHIBIT C
`
`29
`
`September 29, 2011 plaintiff received a response from the Victim Compensation and
`
`Government Claims Board (VCGCB) with the determination they had no jurisdiction
`
`over the Superior Court of Superior Court Judges. EXHIBIT C
`
`30
`
`August 1, 2012, the plaintiff filed a motion with the 4th District Court requesting leave
`
`as advised by the state General Counsel to permit the Victim Claim to be reviewed.
`
`The Fourth District Court of Appeal responded in order to grant leave there must be
`
`31
`
`motion filed to recall the court remittitur.
`
`32
`
`September 29, 2011, the plaintiff filed a motion to recall remittitur.
`
`33
`
`The plaintiff indicates the court responded to his motion to recall the remittitur was
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6
`
`s 9
`
`10
`
`ii
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`i~
`
`18
`
`i~
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-02494-PA-SP Document 1 Filed 12/27/19 Page 8 of 73 Page ID #:8
`
`based on judicial error twice.
`
`34
`
`The plaintiff responded back indicating his motion was not based on judicial error but
`
`a request to be granted leave to allow his claim to be reviewed by the State of
`
`California General Counsel (Lyle Nishimi).
`
`35
`
`August 21, 2012, the plaintiff received a response from the State of California
`
`Counsel indicating his claim was being returned because it was not presented within
`
`six (6) months after the event or occurrence (OPINION) as required by law. EXHIBIT
`
`Plaintiff clearly documents the time was not exceeded. On September Ol, 2011
`
`plaintiff filed a complaint with the Victim Compensation and Government Claims
`
`Board which was continuously delayed as he waited on the State of California Fourth
`
`District Court of Appeal to respond to his request for receiving leave.
`
`November 19, 2012 the State of California Fourth District Court of Appeal denied
`
`plaintiff motion filed to recall remittitur from August 6, 2012 request. EXHIBIT E
`
`37
`
`May 18, 2015 the plaintiff filed another motion to recall remitter for good cause and
`
`38
`
`not judicial error.
`
`39
`
`July 1, 2015 the plaintiff received a response from the State of California Fourth
`
`District of Appeal denying his request to recall remittitur indicating there were no le
`
`grounds for its recall.
`
`40
`
`July 12, 2019, the plaintiff received a response from the State of California Fourth
`District of Appeal with a denial of his fifth motion to recall the remittitur.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 s 6
`
`8 9
`
`1 G
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`i~
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`G 7
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-02494-PA-SP Document 1 Filed 12/27/19 Page 9 of 73 Page ID #:9
`
`41
`
`July 12, 2019, the plaintiff received a response from the fourth Appellate District Coy
`
`indicating the plaintiff filed his fifth motion to recall the remittitur which was being
`
`denied on the same grounds as the denial of his fourth recall motion filed August 16,
`
`2016 where he sought leave from the courts to have the government claims reviewed
`
`which were submitted with an earlier recall motion and forwarded to the Office of
`
`General Counsel order filed November 19, 2012. EXHIBIT F
`!~►]
`September 25, 2019 the Supreme Court of California denied plaintiff's petition for
`review was denied (motion to recall remittitur due to time restrictions beyond 30 days
`of the ORDER of the Court of Appeals 4th District Riverside, California.
`43
`Based on the August 21, 2012, the plaintiff received a response from the State of
`California general counsel his claim was being returned because it was not presented
`within six (6) months after the event or occurrence as required by law is incorrect in
`that he filed all request based on communications from the honorable court and at
`times experience considerable delays but continued to keep the case active as it is
`shown through the chronological records of all engagements as documented in the
`Appellate Courts Case Information Summaries EXHIBIT G
`CLAIMS (CAUSES OF ACTION)
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION CLAIM 1
`Plaintiff alleges paragraphs 3, 13 through 26. (Misuse of First Amendment through
`utilization of California's "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation," (anti-
`SLAPP) 425.16. Constitutional Law § 55—First Amendment—Freedom of Speech—
`State Constitutional Provisions. --The free speech provisions of Cal. Const., art. I, § 2,
`are more protective, definitive, and inclusive of rights to expression of speech than
`their federal counterparts.
`
`1
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6
`
`8 9
`
`io
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`l~
`
`18
`
`19
`
`Zo
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`2~
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-02494-PA-SP Document 1 Filed 12/27/19 Page 10 of 73 Page ID #:10
`
`The plaintiff alleges the defendant wrongfully utilized the First Amendment of the
`
`United States Constitution which protects the freedom of speech. While the
`
`interpretation of this phrase is often used very liberally, the First Amendment forbids
`
`the government from limiting anyone's freedom to speak his or her mind with rare and
`
`narrow exceptions. In lawsuits for defamation (libel or slander), speech is used to
`
`cause intentional harm and, therefore, cannot be used as freely. There is no First
`
`Amendment right to defame another. This is where California's "Strategic Lawsuits
`
`Against Public Participation," 1 (anti-SLAPP) statute and the First Amendment collide.
`
`Significantly, California jurisprudence has extended its prohibition on false statements
`
`of fact to prohibit concealment of material facts. As the court in this Matter of Jeffers
`
`put it "i[i]t is settled that concealment of material facts is just as misleading as explicit
`
`false statements, and accordingly, is misconduct calling for discipline." Additionally,
`
`the court found that the lawyer's conduct constituted a violation of B & P 6106, which
`
`provides that "any act of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption" may be subject to
`
`disbarment or suspension. As referenced in the cases of Grove v. State Bar (1965) 63
`
`Cal. 2d 312, 46 Cal Rptr. 513, 405 P2d 553, Arm v. State Bar (1990) 50 Cal. 3d 763,
`
`268 Cal. Rptr. 741, 789 P.2d 922, Sullins v. State Bar (1975) 15 Cal. 3d 609, 125 Cal.
`
`Rptr. 471, 542 P.2d 631, and Sabatino v. State Bar (1980) 27 Cal. 3d 159, 162 Cal.
`
`Rptr. 458, 606 P. 2d 765. All counsels were clearly aware of the false statement made
`
`by defendant Beard as documented in the police report. His initial statement of claims
`
`the plaintiff had a weapon (knife) which was used as an avenue to utilize first
`
`amendment for protection against a threat was bogus and slanderous. Therefore, the
`
`SLAPP motion should have been denied and sanctions applied.
`
`~~
`
`In California, the so-called anti-SLAPP statute is codified in section 425.16 of the
`Code of Civil of Procedure. The statute allows defendants to file a special motion to
`strike. In order to prevail, the defendant must show that its speech or conduct fits
`within one of the categories spelled out in the statute. If it does, the burden shifts to the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6
`
`8 9
`
`io
`
`ii
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`i~
`
`18
`
`19
`
`Zo
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-02494-PA-SP Document 1 Filed 12/27/19 Page 11 of 73 Page ID #:11
`
`plaintiff to show that he can show a probability of prevailing on the merits. If the
`
`defendant is successful in striking some or all of plaintiff's claims, defendant will be
`
`entitled to collect its reasonable attorney's fees.
`
`3
`
`A party who believes that they have been harmed by the free speech of another party
`
`may threaten and intimidate the free speaker with the burden of legal fees, by way of
`
`filing a lawsuit against the speaker, unless or until they cease their opposition and stop
`
`speaking out against the cause.
`
`0
`
`But filing SLAPP lawsuits against an individual or organization for engaging in
`
`protected political activity is a dangerous thing. The SLAPP statue had never been
`
`used by a corporation against an individual.
`
`5
`
`It was abundantly clear from the outset the response to the plaintiff's lawsuit was not
`
`about remedying any real harm. It was about punishing the challenge of the plaintiff
`
`and chilling any future recall efforts by forcing him to exercise his right to recall and i
`
`pay large amounts of legal fees.
`
`G~
`
`In fact, as noted in exhibit A, the official police report it clearly documents the
`
`defendant at no time was in fear of the plaintiff corroborating the defendant's first
`
`amendment claim. The defendant initially reported to law enforcement officers the
`
`plaintiff threatened him with a knife. This resulted in the plaintiff being humiliated in
`
`the presence of the golf community by being questioned about a weapon. The plaintiff
`
`willingly followed all law enforcement officers orders and no weapon was found. Law
`
`enforcement officer informed the defendant who then changed his story and indicated
`
`he didn't hear the plaintiff make a threat with a knife.
`
`/I
`
`The first amendment clearly states its purpose is to prevent the government from
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6
`
`8 9
`
`io
`
`ii
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`i~
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-02494-PA-SP Document 1 Filed 12/27/19 Page 12 of 73 Page ID #:12
`
`making laws which regulate an establishment of religion, prohibit the free exercise of
`
`religion, or abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to
`
`peaceably assemble, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievance.
`
`g
`
`There was no documentation of violation of the first amendment given support to the
`
`wrongful us of the SLAPP 425.16 based on the fraudulent statement given by the
`
`defendant. This is similar to the case of Louis G. Navellier vs. Kenneth Sletten 29
`
`Cal.4th 82, 124 Cal Rptr. 2d 530, 52 p. 3d703 where Sletten committed fraud in
`
`misrepresenting his intention to be bound by a release, so as to induce the plaintiff to
`
`incur various litigation costs in the federal action filed as a special motion pursuant to
`
`section 425.16 to strike this action as a SLAPP. The court denied the motion indicating
`
`the action fell outside the scope of the "arising from "prong of the anti-SLAPP statue
`
`because it was not brought primarily to chill the exercise of constitutional free speech
`
`or petition rights.
`
`0
`
`The plaintiff indicates this is the case here. He is asking the honorable court to
`
`respectfully permit a reversal and to add a claim for "intentional infliction of emoti
`
`distress."
`
`10
`
`The plaintiff alleges the intentional torts of battery, infliction of emotional distress,
`deceit, and nuisance, all of which resulted in a "violation of Plaintiff's Civil Rights
`
`(`Singled Out').
`
`CLAIM 2
`
`Plaintiff alleges paragraphs 2,7,11, 22-23, and 26 Ralph Civil Rights Act Civ. Code §
`51.7. Freedom from violence; Preservation of legal right to pursue action for
`
`violations.
`
`The plaintiff alleges the charge of battery was never addressed by any of the
`
`1
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6
`
`8 9
`
`io
`
`it
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`~~
`
`18
`
`19
`
`Zo
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-02494-PA-SP Document 1 Filed 12/27/19 Page 13 of 73 Page ID #:13
`
`defendants although a police incident report clearly documents he was struck by the
`
`defendant camera man.
`
`The defendant admits he struck the plaintiff.
`
`CLAIM 3
`
`2
`
`Plaintiff alleges paragraphs 2-9 Unruh Civil Rights Act, CC § 51 et seq also known as
`
`a denial of service or public accommodation discrimination.
`
`1
`
`Because the Unruh Act prohibits violence or intimidation based on a person's sexual
`
`orientation (Civ C § 51.7), it provides a plaintiff with a basis for pleading a cause of
`
`action for a violation of public policy. In the case of Gatto vs Sonoma county, the
`
`plaintiff allegedly was the victim of various crimes committed by one person and the
`
`county failed to adequately investigate that person's conduct or otherwise protect
`
`plaintiff. Gov C § 815.3 (public entity liable for harassment if elected official and
`
`public entity named as codefendants) was applicable to plaintiff's state discrimination
`
`claims for money damages, but otherwise inapplicable as retroactive legislation.
`
`Ortland v. County of Tehama (E.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 1996), 939 F. Supp. 1465, 1996 U.S.
`
`Dist. LEXIS 11789.
`
`2
`
`Appellant county fair ejected respondent patron (Gatto) for refusing to remove his vest
`
`bearing a motorcycle club insignia. His (Gatto) Government Claims Act claim got
`
`rejected. He (Gatto) sued under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51(b),
`
`and Cal. Const. art. 1, § 2, enforceable through a Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1(b) action for
`damages. The Sonoma County Superior Court (California) awarded him damages and
`attorney fees. The fair had a dress code against provocative apparel and "gang
`insignia." The trial court dismissed the city as a party, as it had not adopted the dress
`code. The appellate court found that, as the § 51(b) claim derived from common law
`principles, and as the § 52.1(b) claim sounded in tort, they were subject to the Cal. Civ.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 s 6
`
`8 9
`
`to
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`i~
`
`18
`
`19
`
`Zo
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`2~
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-02494-PA-SP Document 1 Filed 12/27/19 Page 14 of 73 Page ID #:14
`
`Proc. Code § 340 one-year statute of limitations. But the Government Claims Act
`
`extended the limitations beyond the one-year. Enforcement of the dress code did not
`
`deprive the patron of full and equal access to accommodations in violation of the
`
`Unruh Act. The legislature intended to confine the scope of the Unruh Act to types of
`
`discrimination it listed. Any judicial expansion of coverage was to be done carefully,
`
`subject to a three-step inquiry. The dress code was, however, void for vagueness and
`
`facially overbroad, and its enforcement against the patron deprived him of his Due
`
`Process Clause liberty interest in personal dress and appearance. The definition of
`
`"gang," in general, was notoriously imprecise. The dress code did not contain
`
`ascertainable standards. There was no showing that wearing of such insignia would
`
`lead to violence.
`
`3
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the trial court correctly concluded that the Government
`
`Claims Act applied to this action and extended the limitations period beyond the one
`
`year specified in section 340 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Because Gatto filed his
`
`complaint in the superior court within six months from the date of the notice he
`
`received of the rejection of his claim (Gov. Code, §§ 911.8, subd. (b), 913, subd. (b)),
`
`it was not time-barred.
`
`The plaintiff (Shack) alleges similar, there is no evidence presented of him violating
`
`anyone's first amendment right but a clear display of his civil rights being violated.
`
`5
`
`Plaintiff has also demonstrated he entered his complaint and continued to respond to
`the honorable court within the required time but was stalled due to many court delays
`(Exhibits G). Plaintiff requests his case to be recognized as not time-barred as in the
`
`case with Gatto.
`
`CLAIM 4
`
`Plaintiff alleges paragraphs 27-43 Civil Rights § 7.1—Discrimination by
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6
`
`8 9
`
`to
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`l~
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`2~
`
`28
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-02494-PA-SP Document 1 Filed 12/27/19 Page 15 of 73 Page ID #:15
`
`Government—Federal Civil Rights Statute—Application of Government Claims Act. -
`
`-Federal civil rights claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are exempt from the claim
`
`filing requirements of the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 910 et seq.) because
`
`the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution does not permit a state law to
`
`alter or restrict federally created rights.
`
`1
`
`The plaintiff clearly documents being denied leave from the Fourth (4th) District Cou
`
`of Appeal which would have permitted the State Attorney of California General
`
`Counsel to gain proper jurisdiction to review his Victim Government Claim (Exhibits
`
`E and F).
`
`(As against Defendant(s): NBC Universal Media Group, SAMSUNG America, IMG
`
`Worldwide, and Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA)
`
`WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that this Court:
`
`VI. REQUEST FOR RELIEF
`
`(a) Address the issues that would have been addressed in the Victims Government
`
`Claim;
`
`(b) Enter judgment against the defendant;
`
`(c) Issue a declaratory judgment declaring that all defendants are unconstitutional on
`
`its face;
`(d) Award plaintiff costs, interest and reasonable attorneys' fees for this action
`
`pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and other relevant statutes; and,
`(e) Order such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper under the
`circumstances to include but is not limited compensatory and punitive damages (to
`pain and suffering, loss of income, back and forward pay to be made whole);
`(~ To examine the Government Tort Liability § 18—Claims—Exception without
`prejudice—Actions Seeking Nonmonetary Relief.--When a claimant seeks both
`damages and nonmonetary relief from a public entity in the same action, the
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6
`
`8 9
`
`io
`
`li
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`i~
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-02494-PA-SP Document 1 Filed 12/27/19 Page 16 of 73 Page ID #:16
`
`applicability of the claim filing requirements of the Government Claims Act (Gov.
`
`Code, § 910 et seq.) turns on whether the damages sought are ancillary to the equitable
`
`relief also sought, in which case the requirements are inapplicable, or the reverse is
`
`true, in which case the filing requirements apply. An action for specific relief does not
`
`lose its exempt status solely because incidental money damages are sought.
`
`VII. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiff hereby requests a jury trial on all raised in this complaint.
`
`Dated:
`
`Q
`~ ~ ~2.
`~~~ C
`
`~,
`Sign:
`Vincent W. Shack
`Plaintiff in pro per
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6
`
`8 9
`
`10
`
`ii
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-02494-PA-SP Document 1 Filed 12/27/19 Page 17 of 73 Page ID #:17
`Case 5:19-cv-02494-PA-SP Document 1 Filed 12/27/19 Page 17 of 73 Page ID #:17
`
`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-02494-PA-SP Document 1 Filed 12/27/19 Page 18 of 73 Page ID #:18
`Case 5:19-cv-02494-PA-SP Document 1 Filed 12/27/19 Page 18 of 73 Page ID #:18
`
`EXHIBIT A-1
`EXHIBIT A-l
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-02494-PA-SP Document 1 Filed 12/27/19 Page 19 of 73 Page ID #:19
`mss'-..v>~a~r~. .~~,
`
`RIVEFc~~DE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPAR"~..~ENT
`-PALM DESERT S 1 ATION
`
`~~ ~
`
`Case # T07304047
`Subject: 415(3) PC —Disturbing the Peace
`
`Continuation Page
`Page # 3
`
``~``^ ~'~~~~ ~J~~
`
`investigator den Ramirez X2343
`
``
`DETAILS:
`On 10•-~ t~-d7, I was working a~ a uniformed Deputy Sheriff at the Samsung Golf
`Charnpion~s~ip, at the Bighorn Golf Club /Canyons Course, at 312 Canyon Dr., Palm Desert. At
`about 1540 hours, I was providing security with Corporal Pierce as the LPGA golfers left the
`eighteenth green. We were approached by an NBC cameraman, (V!C) Dan Beard, who told us
`a spectator had made threats to cut him with a knife, after Beard reached out with his hand to
`keep the spectator out of a live camera feed. Beard and his assistant, Matt Cook, left to film an
`interview, but returned a few minutes later.
`
`Beard pointed out the subject who made the threats to him, as the subject was walking
`up the cart path on the south side of the eighteenth hole, toward the clubhouse. Corporal Pierce
`and I contacted the subject, later identified as Vincent Shack, about halfway up the cart path.
`asked Shack if I could speak to him about what occurred with the camera man, and he stopped
`and said, "This is just another nigger going to jail." I explained that I was investigating- possible
`threats made, and Shack denied making any threats to _the cameraman. He told me he was
`watching the gofers, and had walked in front of the camera, when the camerai~~an reached out
`.to stop him. He denied having any weapons, and .emptied his pockets on the cart path without
`me requesting it.
`
`Shack told me I was embarrassing him by talking to him, and claimed we were
`"accosting" him. I told him I was investigating a possible crime reported to m~, and was not
`taking him to jail. His attitude and demeanor with me reflected that of someone who was
`challenging me to arrest him for something. At the time Shack claimed we were embarrassing
`him, there were no other spectators on the cart path to see me talking to him. Shack gave me
`his business card, and told me he was a "2 handicap" which had no bearing on the investigation
`was conducting. He used the term "nigger" a second time during my contact with him, and
`asked if I knew how many black males were in jail across the nation due to false arrest. I told
`him I did not, but Shack then quoted a number to me.
`
`Corporal Pierce spoke to Shack's friend, Javier Silva, who told Corporal Pierce ti^ saw
`the cameraman reach out and stop Shack from blocking the camera. Silva said he did not hear
`any threats made to the cameraman.
`
`Shack questioned me about what the cameraman claimed he said, and then asked if he
`could go with me when I spoke to Beard. I told he could not be there as I spoke to she
`cameraman, and told him he was free to leave. My contact with Shack was less than five
`minutes long.
`
`returned to the eighteenth green and spoke to Beard a seconca time. Beard told me he
`was on the south side of the eighteenth hole, west of the green, when he vas at~empting to
`provi