berg lawsuit

8/3/2019 Berg Lawsuit

1/12

UN ITED S T A T E S D I S TR IC T C O U R TD I S TR I C T O F CONNECT I CU T

ERICA BERGPlaintiff,

c yv s .

L E O N A R D G A L L O :Defendant, :M I C H A E L S O R B ODefendant, :O F F I C E R E M E R M A NDefendant, :OFFICER F INOIADefendant, :OFFICER JOH N MILLER :Defendant, :S E R G E A N T K A T T I SDefendant, :M A Y O R J O S E P H M A T U R ODefendant, :S G T . F R A N K M O N T A G N ADefendant, :U N K N O WN J O H N D O E O F F I C E R SDefendants.T O WN O F E A S T H A V E N , C TDefendant.

COMPLA I N T

1 . This is an act ion to redress a conspiracy by the defendants the object of which was to


2/12

utterly deprive the plaint i f f of civi l r ights secured to her by the Consti tut ion and laws of theUni ted States, as wel l as those of the State of Connect icut , and by any not ion of commonhum an dece ncy. This conspiracy was so low, and so shad owy, and mot ivated by suchpet ty ambi t ions as to resemble nothing so much as a sad, cruel parody of an organizedcrime fami ly. In th is case, arm ed wi th badg es and authori ty, the conspirators took aim atthe plaint i f f with the intent to punish her for her pol i t ical aff i l iat ions and bel iefs, and at thesam e t ime to further thei r ow n pol it ical aspi rat ions and de signs on tow n control . W he nthei r can cerou s consp iracy cam e to l ight , they offered "protect ion" and favors. Theplaint if f, unde terred, would not be so deprived of her r ights and she b r ings this a ct ionseeking just ice.

2. By way of the acts and omissions, pol ic ies and pract ices more ful ly described below,the defendants caused the False Arrest and Mal ic ious Prosecut ion of the Plaint i f f Er icaBerg , and said cla ims arise under the Fourth Amendment to the Uni ted StatesCon st i tut ion. Th e defen dan ts also eng age d in cond uct that den ied the plaint if f equalprotect ion of the laws as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and retal iatedagainst the plaint i f f for having exercised rights guaranteed to her under the FirstAm en dm en t. In the manne r described he rein, the defen dan ts deprived the plaint if f of herr ight to be f ree f rom false imprisonment , fa lse arrest , mal ic ious prosecut ion, defamat ionand intent ional inf l ict ion of emot ion al d ist ress under the laws of the State of Co nnect icutwhich is invoked under the supplementary jur isdict ion of th is court .

3. Jurisd ict ion of this Court is invok ed und er the prov isions of 1 3 3 1 , 1343(3) and1367(a) of Ti t le 28 and 1983 and 1988 of Ti t le 42 of the Uni ted States Code.

2


3/12

4 . During al l t imes mentioned in this Complaint, the plaint i f f Erica Berg was, and st i l l is, anadul t resident of the State of Connect icut , residing in Branford, Connect icut .

5 . During a ll t imes ment ioned in th is Comp la in t, the defendant L EO NA RD GA LLO was ,and st i l l is , an adul t resident of the State of Connect icut , employed as a law enforcementof f icer by the Tow n of East Haven , act ing under color of law. His business add ress is EastHav en Pol ice Departm ent , 471 N orth High Street , East Hav en, CT. He is sued in hisindiv idual capaci ty.

6. During all t imes men t ioned in th is Com plaint , defend ant MIC HA EL S OR BO wa s a lawenforcement of f icer, and former Republ ican candidate for Town Counci l , employed by theTo wn of East Have n act ing under color of law. He is sue d in his individua l cap acity on ly.

7. During al l t imes ment ioned in th is Complaint , defendant Of f icer EMERMAN was a lawenforc em ent of f icer emp loyed by the Town of East Haven act ing under color of law. He issued in his individual capacity only.

8. During al l t imes ment ioned in th is Complaint , defendant Of f icer FINOIA was a lawenforc em ent of f icer emp loyed by the Town of East Haven act ing under color of law. He issued in his individual capacity only.

9. During all t imes me nt ioned in th is Com plaint , defendan t Sergean t KAT TIS was a lawenforc em ent of f icer em ploye d by the Town of East Haven act ing under color of law. He issued in his individual capacity only.

10 . Dur ing a l l t imes ment ioned in th is Compla in t , defendant JOSEPH MATURO wasei ther a high ranking me mb er of the Rep ubl ican Pa rty of East Hav en or mayo r of East3


4/12

Haven wh o was opp osed by the plaint i ff 's boss, Apri l Capo ne. Maturo is current ly themayor of the Town of East Haven and he is sued in his indiv idual capaci ty only.

1 1 . During al l t imes ment ioned in th is Complaint , defendant Sergeant FRANKMO NT AG NA was a law enforcement o f f icer employed by the Tow n of East Haven act ingund er colo r of law. He is sue d in his individu al capac ity only.

1 2. During al l t imes ment ioned in th is Complaint , defendant Of f icer JOHN MILLER was alaw enforcement of f icer employed by the Town of East Haven act ing under color of law.He is sued in his individual capacity only.

1 3. During al l t imes ment ioned in th is Complaint , defendant JOHN DOE Off icer was a lawenforc em ent of f icer emp loyed by the Town of East Haven act ing under color of law. He issued in his individual capacity only.

1 4. At al l t imes ment ioned in th is Complaint , the defendants acted jo int ly and in concertwi th each other. Each defen dan t had the duty and the opportuni ty to protect the plaint if ff rom the unlawful act ions of the other defendant but each defendant fa i led and refused toperform such duty, thereby proximately causing the plaint i f fs in jur ies herein complainedof.

1 5. No la ter than Ju ly 19, 2009, defendants GALLO, SORBO, EMERAN, FINOIA,KATTIS, MATURO, MILLER, and JOHN DOE were aware that the p la in t i f f was aDem ocrat ic par ty memb er work ing for Mayor C apone, a po l it ica l oppone nt o f MAT UR O.The defendants suppo r ted MA TUR O and w ished to curry h is favor , as GAL LO andM AT UR O had a long-standing relat ionship going back more than a deca de. Toge ther, the4


5/12

defendants conspired to implement a st rategy to defame the plaint i f f , chi l l her exercise ofher First Amendment rights, deny her equal protect ion of the laws, and falsely arrest her inorder to foster MATURO's pol i t ical ambi t ions and exact revenge for a perceived sl ightfo l lowing Capone's elect ion in 2007.

16. This st rategy was uncovered and began to unravel when, on or about July 19, 2009,defendant SORBOin concer t w i th the o ther defendantsswore a fa lse compla in tal leging that the plaint i f f and Capone had interfered with his performance of his off icialpol ice dut ies. Speci f ical ly, SO RB O a ccuse d the plaint if f of remo ving t ickets he had placedon cars that were parked a t a town b each and which he had author ized to be towed . Th isaccusation was a bold-faced l ie, concocted to retal iate against the plaint i f f for her pol i t icalaf f i l iat ion wi th the defendants ' Democrat ic r ival, Mayor Capone . De fendan ts EM ERM AN,FINOIA, KATTIS, MILLER, and DOE were aware of the false al legat ion yet del iberatelyfai led to intervene to prevent the unjust arrest of the plaint i f f .

17. This complaint was made both oral ly and in wri t ten form, and was submit ted by thedefend ants in order to procure a warra nt for the plaint i f fs arrest . This comp laint wa s false,and the defendants publ ished these statements wi th actual mal ice in that ei ther they (a)knew the statements were false, or (b) they acted wi th reckless disregard for the t ruth ofsuch s ta tements .

18. Defend ant M ILLER , know ing the al legat ion to be false nevertheless sign ed of f on thepol ice report "memorial iz ing" the events July 19, 2009 that served as the basis for theissuance of an of arrest warrant for the plaint i f f .

5


6/12

19. Defendant MONTAGNA, knowing the al legat ion to be false nevertheless signed of fon the arrest warran t af f idavi t thus au thoriz ing the arrest of the plainti ff on fa lse ch arges.The warrant was disseminated to a prosecut ing authori ty knowing the prosecutor wouldrely on i t in determining whether to place and maintain charges against the plaint i f f .

20. The complaint the defendant SORBO publ ished to and caused to be f i led wi th theEast Haven Pol ice Department and New Haven Superior Court would, to a person ofcommon and reasonable understanding, imply that the plaint i f f had engaged in i l legal

cond uct and was a cr iminal . The plaint if f has suf fered and wi l l cont inue to suf ferdam age s as a resul t of the publ icat ion of th is fa lse com plaint .

2 1 . A short t ime af ter the warrant was signed on August 3 1 , 2009, the plaint i f f learned ofi ts existence and was advised to turn hersel f in to the East Haven Pol ice Department on

September 4, 2009 before GALLO could implement a plan to have her arrested andparad ed before the news media. Desp i te th is forew arning , the defen dan ts learned thatthe plaint i f f had turned herself in and detained her, not i f ied local media, and held her forthe sole purpose of a l lowing the media to arr ive on scene so that the defendants couldforce the plaint i ff to suffer throu gh an unlawful "perp wa lk". Un fortunate ly, m ediamembers were not al lowed into the East Haven Pol ice Department locker room, wherethey would have seen derogatory pictures of the plaint i f f and Mayor Capone hanging inful l -v iew and wi th the defendants ' approval .

22. On a number of occasions since the arrest , defendant GALLO told the plaint i f f thatdespi te the lack of any probable cause for her arrest he had been forced to push the6


7/12

warrant through on the basis of the false complaint because, "How would i t have looked i fwe'd only arrested Apri l?"

23. With a federal invest igat ion of the East Haven Pol ice Department in fu l l swing andfearing that he may be arrested, defendant GALLO at tempted to maintain control over theplaint if f by of fer ing her employ me nt . Defend ant GA LL O m ade i t c lear that the f inaldecision about whether he would hi re her was to be made only af ter conferr ing wi thde fendan t MATURO.

24 . Defendant GALLO d id in fact meet w i th defendant MATURO in December 201 landemployment of the plaint i f f was approved whereupon defendant GALLO cal led plaint i f f toinform her.

25. Defendant MATURO has cont inued to ment ion the concocted arrest of the plaint i f fwhen interviewed publ ic ly about his involvement in pol i t ical scandals that have tarnishedthe reputat ion of East Haven causing further embarrassment and humi l iat ion to theplaintiff.

26 . Given the known fa lsehood of SORBO's compla in t , there was no probable cause toarrest the plaint i f f for any criminal act.

27. The plaint i f f declared her innocence of the charges levied against her and prevai ledwhen al l charges were dismissed by the Hon. Earl Richards on February 22, 2010.28 . On informat ion and bel ief , defendant TOWN, as a matter of pol icy and pract ice, haswith del iberate indif ference fai led to sanction or discipl ine pol ice off icers for violat ingci t izen's con st i tutional r ights and we re aw are of v iolations of const i tut ional r ights by To wn


8/12

of East Haven Pol ice Off icers, thereby encouraging said of f icers, including al l nameddefendants, to cont inue to engage in unlawful conduct .

29 . On informat ion and bel ief the defendant TOWN has a pract ice, custom or usage ofdel iberate indif ference to the consti tut ional rights of i ts ci t izens, which caused the violat ionof the nam ed pla int i f fs r ights. This pat tern of condu ct , whi le carr ied out under color oflaw, has no just i f ica t ion or excu se in law, but instead is imp rop er an d i l legal and isunrelated to any act iv i ty in which pol ice of f icers may properly and legal ly engage in thecourse of thei r dut ies to enforce laws, protect persons and p roperty and insure civ il order.

30. On informat ion and bel ief the defendant TOWN pursued the aforement ioned pol ic ies,pract ices, customs or usages and encouraged and or acquiesced in the pract ice ofhara ssing a nd or int imidation of its ci t izens in violat ion of their con sti tut iona l rights. Th eact ions of al l named defendants complained herein, resul ted f rom the performance oftheir dut ies pursuant to said pol icy.

3 1 . As a resul t of the above described pol ic ies and customs, pol ice of f icers of thedefendant TOWN, including al l named defendant pol ice of f icers, bel ieved that thei ract ions would not be properly moni tored an d that miscon duct wo uld not be invest igated orsanct ioned but would be tolerated.

32. Said pol ic ies, pract ices and customs of defendant TOWN complained of herein, aswell as their omissions, deprived al l named plaint i f fs of their rights secured by the Fourth,

8


9/12

Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Const i tut ion in v io lat ion of 42 U.S.C.1983 .

33. Al l named defendant of f icers conspired to conceal the t ruth of the events thatoccurred on July 19, 2009.

34. Al l named defendant of f icers acted in furtherance of the plan to conceal the t ruth bynot reporting their unlawful conduct, that of unlawful ly arresting the plaintif f , to any

supervis ing of f icers or any ent i ty wi th authori ty over their conduct or memorial iz ing theunlawful conduct in any wri t ten notes or wri t ten reports.

35. Al l named defendant of f icers acted in furtherance of the plan to conceal the t ruth bynot reporting their unlav\/ ful conduct, that of unlawful ly retal iat ing against the plaintif f forhaving exercised r ights guaranteed to her under the First Amendment.

36. Defendant MATURO acted in furtherance of the plan to conceal the t ruth by direct ingdefendant GALLO to hire the plaint i f f in an at tempt to buy her s i lence as to the unlawfulacts commit ted by the defendant of f icers.

37. The arrest and prosecut ion of the plaint i f f was carr ied out by the defendants withmal ice and without probable cause, al l in an ef fort to destroy her humanity.

38. As a direct and proximate resul t of the acts and omissions of the defendants hereindescribed, the plaint i f f suf fered loss of l iberty and reputat ion, humil iat ion and emot ional9


10/12

dist ress.

39 . In the manner described above, the defendants intent ional ly and mal ic iously acted todeprive the plaint if f of her Fourth Am en dm en t r ights to be f ree from unre ason ablesearches and seizures by fa lsely arrest ing her.

4 0 . In the ma nner des cribed ab ove, the defendants intent ional ly and m al ic iously retal iatedagainst the plaint i f f for having exercised her r ights under the Fi rst Amendment.

4 1 . In the manner described above, the defendants intent ional ly and mal ic iouslyprosecuted the plaint i f f by intent ional ly wi thholding exculpatory informat ion andmanufactur ing false evidence, but for which no f inding of probable cause could have beenmade .

42 . In the manner described above, the defendants intent ional ly and mal ic iously acted todeprive the plaint i f f of her right to equal protect ion of the laws as guaranteed by theFourteenth Amendment to the Uni ted States Const i tut ion.

43 . In the manner described above, the defendants the defendants deprived the plaint i f fof her r ight to be f ree f rom false imprisonm ent , fa lse arrest , and mal ic ious pro secut ion inviolat ion of Connect icut common law.

44 . . In the man ner desc ribed ab ove, the defendan ts defam ed the plaint if f in v io lat ion ofConnect icu t common law.

45 . The conduct o f the defendants descr ibed above was ext reme and out rageous and10


11/12

was carried out with the knowledge that i t was l ikely to cause the plaint i f f to sufferemot ional d ist ress, a l l in v io lat ion of Connect icut common law.

W HE RE FO RE , the p la in ti ff s c la im judgm ent a ga inst the defendants as fo l lows:

A. Com pen satory d am ag es in an amoun t th is Cou rt shal l cons ider to be just and fair ;

B. Puni t ive dam age s in an am oun t th is Court shal l cons ider to be just and fai r ;

C. At torne y's fees and the costs of th is act ion;D. Suc h other rel ief as this court shal l consid er to be fair and e quita ble.

11


12/12

C L A I M F O R A J U R Y T R I A L

The plaint i f f claims trial by jury in this case.

THE PLAINTIFF , ERICA BERG

By Is /Glenn M. ConwayFederal Bar No. ct i7946Conway Law F i rm7 Elm Street, 2"^ FloorNew Haven, CT 06510T: 203-624-1400F: 203-624-6110E; conwavlawf i rm(a)gmai l .com

By Is/K. Murray Smith, Esq.Federal bar No. ct27657129 Church St., Ste. 300New Haven, CT 06510T; 203-980-7559F: 866-236-5477E: Kev insmi th law@Gmai l .com

12

berg lawsuit

Documents