Avvocato Vs. The City of Austin

Case 1:22-cv-00516-RP Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 1 of 11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
SAGE AVVOCATO,
§
§
Plaintiff
§
§
CAUSE OF ACTION:
V.
§
§
1:22-cv-00516
CITY OF AUSTIN,
§
§
Defendant.
§
§
§
PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Sage Avvocato brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case against the City of Austin for
the brutal and excessive force it inflicted on her as she was peacefully exercising her right to
assembleand protest and doing absolutely nothing wrong.
I. PARTIES
1. Plaintiff Sage Avvocato is a resident of El Paso County, Texas.
2. Defendant CITY OF AUSTIN, is a municipality that operates the Austin Police
Department and may be served through its City Clerk at 301 W. 2nd Street, Austin, TX 78701. The
City's policymaker for policing matters is Police Chief Brian Manley. Service is hereby requested
at this time.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. As this case is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, this Court has federal question subject
matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
4. This Court has general personal jurisdiction over Defendant as they reside and/or work in
Travis County, Texas.
Case 1:22-cv-00516-RP Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 2 of 11
5. This Court has specific in personam jurisdiction over Defendant because this case arises
out of conduct by Defendant that injured Plaintiff Avvocato, and which occurred in Travis
County, Texas, which is within the Western District of Texas.
6. Venue of this cause is proper in the Western District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1)
because a substantial portion of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff's claims occurred
in Travis County, which is within the Western District of Texas.
III. FACTS
7. On May 31, 2020, Ms. Avvocato went downtown to participate in a demonstration against
police brutality following the police killings of George Floyd and Michael Ramos.
8. Ms. Avvocato posed no threat to anyone.
9. Ms. Avvocato was doing nothing that could conceivably be perceived as threatening to
anyone.
10. Ms. Avvocato was completely and totally innocent.
11. Ms. Avvocato was unarmed.
12. Ms. Avvocato made no suspicious movements that could conceivably lead officers to
believe that she was armed.
13. Despite this, an APD officer inexplicably, unconscionably, and unreasonably shot her in
the head with a potentially lethal projectile - a so-called "less lethal" "beanbag" round fired from
a shotgun.
14. The projectile hit Ms. Avvocato's face, in close proximity to her eye.
15. As a consequence, Ms. Avvocato fell to the ground and suffered a traumatic eye/occipital
injury. The projectile immediately - and to this day - caused Ms. Avvocato to suffer significant
physical pain, mentalanguish, impairment, and disfigurement.
16. Tragically, Ms. Avvocato was just one of many innocent people APD officers used
2
Case 1:22-cv-00516-RP Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 3 of 11
excessive force against on May 30 and May 31 who were doing nothing more than attending an
event protesting police violence against Black people.
17. In fact, on May 30, 2020, APD officers used grotesque excessive force numerous times,
seriously injuring several people with "bean bag" shotgun rounds, and otherwise attacking
innocent demonstrators who did nothing more than exercise their free speech and assembly rights.
Among others, APD's victims from May 30, 2020 included Jason Gallagher, Saraneka Martin,
Levi Ayala, Bomani Barton, Steven Arawn, Gemicah Volter-Jones, Meredith Williams, Nicole
Underwood, and Joe Herrera.
18. Police force against Ayala was not justified by any facts known to APD or its officers.
19. Police force against Gallagher was not justified by any facts known to APD or its officers.
20. Police force against Martin was not justified by any facts known to APD or its officers.
21. Police force against Barton was not justified by any facts known to APD or its officers.
22. Police force against Arawn was not justified by any facts known to APD or its officers.
23. Police force against Volter-Jones was not justified by any facts known to APD or its
officers.
24. Police force against Williams was not justified by any facts known to APD or its officers.
25. Police force against Underwood was not justified by any facts known to APD or its officers.
26. Police force against Herrera was not justified by any facts known to APD or its officers.
27. While numerous people had been injured by APD, including several who had suffered
serious injuries (including head injuries) from "beanbag" shotgun rounds fired by APD on May
30, 2020, rather than correct this unconstitutional behavior by his officers, of which he, Mayor
Adler, City Manager Kronk, and several City Council members were made aware of, Chief Manley
3
Case 1:22-cv-00516-RP Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 4 of 11
and his senior leadership permitted APD to continue firing kinetic projectiles dangerously from
"beanbag" shotguns at innocent people and into crowds on May 31, 2020 as well.
28. As a consequence, in addition to Ms. Avocatto, numerous other innocent, defenseless
individualswere shot in the head or face and seriously injured with projectile "beanbag" shotgun
rounds on May 31, 2020. Among others, these include Anthony Evans, Annette Chavez,
Christen Warkoczewski, and Samuel Kirsch
29. Evans was also doing absolutely nothing wrong and was shot in the face with a projectile
fired by APD.
30. Police used force against Evans that was not justified by any facts known to APD or its
officers.
31. Police force against Chavez was also not justified by any facts known to APD or its
officers. Yet she was shot in the back of the head as well.
32. And the force used against Christen Warkoczewski - shooting her in the head as she ran
away - was not reasonable and not justified by any facts known to APD or its officers.
33. Upon information and belief, when APD shot Ms. Avvocato and the others, the officers
were substantially motivated by their opposition to the demonstrators' message that police
violence must end.
34. Among others, these include (but are by no means limited to) force used against Jesus
Hernandez, Pete Hernandez, Sir Smith, Carlos Chacon, and Braion King, as well as the killings of
David Joseph, Larry Jackson, Jr., Kevin Brown, Byron Carter, Ahmede Bradley, Jason Roque,
Nathan Sanders, Daniel Rocha, and Michael Ramos. All of the preceding were unarmed when
APD officers assaulted or killed them.
35. Further indicative of APD's failure to remedy its discriminatory practices is a 2020 analysis
of city traffic data that found that Black motorists comprise 25% of APD's arrests despite
4
Case 1:22-cv-00516-RP Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 5 of 11
representing only 8% of its population.
36. In any event, APD's shooting of Ms. Avvocato with a kinetic projectile "beanbag" was
objectively unreasonable and shocks the conscience
37. Moreover, the attack on Ms. Avvocato would chill a person of ordinary firmness from
continuingto engage in protected speech and assembly.
38. Numerous APD officers watched the officer shoot Ms. Avvocato, but not one officer
intervened to stop the outrageous shooting, just as no one intervened to stop the prior shootings.
39. Moreover, APD Chief of Police, Brian Manley, adopted policies that authorized or
tolerated this unreasonable, unnecessary and brutally excessive force even though Chief Manley
had long known of the dangers of firing projectiles into crowds and at innocent and defenseless
persons, and was actually aware that bean bag rounds fired from shotguns had been unreasonably
used multiple times on May 30, 2020 and multiple times again on May 31, 2020 prior to the attack
on Ms. Avvocato. Despite this, and Manley's awareness of the severe injuries caused by
"beanbag" shotgun rounds, APD policies - and Manley - authorized their continued use.
40. Likewise, APD had a long-standing policy of paramilitary training for its officers to act as
"warriors," and see conflict with members of the public as inevitable as part of an "us vs. them"
culture. Officers were trained to be "indifferent to the community," according to a report
commissioned by the City.
41. APD's training academy taught cadets - who later became APD officers - to act as if they
were at war with the community they were supposed to be protecting. In one incident, an academy
instructor told cadets that if "anyone here says they want to be a police officer to 'help people, I
will punch you in the face."
42. Another instructor told cadets to "pick someone out of a crowd, and ask yourself, 'how
could I kill that person?"
5
Case 1:22-cv-00516-RP Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 6 of 11
43. A report commissioned by the City found that officers were trained to see "the Austin
community [as] the enemy."
44. Unsurprisingly, the report further found that "the culture of a police training academy
reflects the culture of a department and impacts the mindset and approach to policing." The report
concluded that the City must provide "training for handling protests with non-militaristic
approaches."
45. Chief Manley knew, as any reasonable policymaker would also know, that as a direct and
proximate consequence of such practices, innocent people like Ms. Avvocato would be seriously
injuredand victimized, and their constitutional rights violated.
46. As a direct and proximate result, numerous other people suffered severe and devastating
injuries as a result of APD's practices and excessive force on May 30, 2020 and May 31, 2020 -
before Ms. Avvocato was senselessly shot.
47. According to Dell Seton Medical Center's physicians, seven victims required surgical
interventions and four victims retained portions of the "beanbag" shotgun rounds in their
bodies/heads.
48. More particularly, victims suffered intercranial hemorrhages, depressed skull fractures,
depressed frontal bone fracture, fractured jaws and brain damage.
49. Upon information and belief, Manley knew that APD had inflicted this type of serious
injury on innocent demonstrators before his officer shot and critically injured Ms. Avvocato.
50. After ignoring the pattern of excessive force that preceded the attack on Ms. Avvocato for
several more days, multiple members of the City Council called for Manley to be removed as
APD's Chiefof Police.
51. Following the calls to remove him, Chief Manley acknowledged the obvious: the policies
at Austin Police Department concerning the use of "beanbag" shotguns were dangerously flawed
6
Case 1:22-cv-00516-RP Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 7 of 11
and he agreed to change them - a change any reasonable policymaker should have known to have
made prior to Ms. Avvocato being shot and seriously injured.
52. The injury Ms. Avvocato suffered is substantial.
53. Tragically, Ms. Avvocato's eye injury will impair her for the rest of her life.
IV. CAUSES OF ACTION
The City of Austin directly and through its practices caused Plaintiff's rights to be violated
and caused her to suffer serious injuries.
54. At least one Austin Police Department Officer, while acting under color of law, used
excessive force that shocks the conscience on Sage Avvocato when she posed no danger to
anyone.
55. This use of force shocks the conscience, was wholly excessive to any conceivable need,
and was objectively unreasonable. Therefore, Defendant's employee violated Plaintiff's rights
under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
56. As a direct and proximate result, Ms. Avvocato suffered and continues to suffer
significant injuries.
57. Likewise, the First Amendment's protections for free speech and assembly prohibit agents
of the government from subjecting an individual, like Ms. Avvocato, to retaliation for engaging
in protected speech rights.
58. Ms. Avvocato exercised her free speech and assembly rights by attending the
demonstration against police violence.
59. Upon information and belief, the officer's use of force against Ms. Avvocato was
substantially motivated by his disagreement with the content of Ms. Avvocato's speech. Upon
information and belief, the officer shot Ms. Avvocato with the beanbag shotgun substantially
because the officer disagreed with Ms. Avvocato's right to assemble and/or her protected speech.
60. In addition, Ms. Avvocato was yet one more unarmed person senselessly injured by
7
Case 1:22-cv-00516-RP Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 8 of 11
APD's long-standing pattern of using excessive force against people protesting non-violently on
May 30 and May 31.
61. Among others from that weekend alone, these include Adam Cambell, Saraneka Martin, Levi
Ayala, Bomani Barton, Anthony Evans, Anette Chavez, and Joe Herrera.
62. Moreover, Defendant City of Austin had the following policies, practices, or customs in place
when an APD Officer unreasonably shot Plaintiff Ms. Avvocato:
a. Shooting kinetic projectiles into crowds where innocent people could be injured;
b. Shooting people in the head with kinetic projectiles;
C. Using, authorizing, and/or tolerating excessive force against non-violent protestors
d. Failing to adequately discipline officers;
e. Failing to adequately supervise officers;
f. Allowing officers with pending Internal Affairs investigations to use "less lethal"
beanbag shotguns as crowd control devices;
g. Failing to adequately train officers concerning de-escalation of force, crowd
control, use of force against non-violent protestors, and the use or misuse of kinetic
projectiles;
h. Failing to train officers regarding demonstrators' free speech and assembly rights;
i. Not intervening to stop constitutional violations, including but not limited to
retaliation, conduct that shocks the conscience, and excessive force;
j. Failing to train or instruct officers about specific incidents it considers
unreasonable, excessive force, or in violation of the Constitution;
k. Training officers to act as paramilitary "warriors," and creating an "us vs. them"
culture where officers were "at war" with the community they were supposed to be
serving, which encouraged officers to use excessive force;
1.
Disproportionately using and tolerating excessive force, including deadly force,
against unarmed people of color; and
m. Using munitions that are dangerous or expired.
63. Each of the policies, practices, or customs delineated above was actually known, constructively
known and/or ratified by City of Austin and then Chief of Police, Brian Manley, and was
8
Case 1:22-cv-00516-RP Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 9 of 11
promulgated with deliberate indifference to Ms. Avvocato's First, Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights under the United States Constitution. Moreover, the known and obvious
consequence of these policies, practices, or customs was that Austin Police Department officers
would be placed in recurring situations in which the constitutional violations described within
thiscomplaint would result. Accordingly, these policies also made it highly predictable that the
particular violations alleged here, all of which were under color of law, would result.
64. Consequently, the policies delineated above were a moving force of Plaintiff's constitutional
deprivations and injuries, and proximately caused severe damages.
65. Moreover, Chief Manley and senior level APD superiors knew that multiple officers had violated
individuals' right to speech and assembly and had used excessive force at the protests the day
before and earlier on May 31. As a consequence of them not stopping the abusive tactics, they
caused numerous people to suffer serious injuries. Thus, they condoned and ratified the abuse.
Moreover, the City and its leadership, including Chief Manley, is aware through court findings,
litigation, reports commissioned by the City, video footage, and investigations of a pattern of
racism and disproportionate and excessive force used against minorities by APD officers.
Accordingly, the City is also liable directly for its policymakers' misconduct and failure to
adequately supervise, train, and stop APD officers from using excessive force and violating
protestors' first amendment and equal protection rights, which was a proximate cause of Plaintiff's
deprivation of rights and injuries.
66. Manley failed to supervise the officer that shot Ms. Avvocato and by authorizing, encouraging,
and failing to stop officers from engaging in reckless police tactics like firing "beanbag" shotgun
rounds into crowds of non-violent demonstrators, and the other above delineated policies, all of
which caused the violation of Ms. Avvocato's constitutional rights. Manley was deliberately
indifferent to the known and obvious consequences of these policies, practices, and customs
9
Case 1:22-cv-00516-RP Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 10 of 11
which he was aware of, authorized, and encouraged, rather than acting to correct them. Manley
was actually aware of facts from which any reasonable policymaker could draw the inference that
a substantialrisk of serious harm and violations of constitutional rights existed, and actually drew
that inference. Manley was aware of the pattern of similar incidents that occurred before and
after Ms. Avvocato's serious injuries, although it was also apparent and obvious that a
constitutional violation was a highly predictable consequence of the City's above delineated
policies.
67. Likewise, Manley knew or should have known that training his officers it was acceptable to fire
"beanbag" shotgun rounds into crowds of nonviolent demonstrators, among the other dangerous
policies delineated above, were particular omissions in the City's training program that would
cause City employees to violate the constitutional rights of members of the public they
encountered, like Ms. Avvocato. Nevertheless, though Manley knew of these obvious
deficiencies, and even the serious injuries they caused the day before, he chose to retain this
dangerously flawed training program and did nothing to correct his officers despite knowing that
demonstrations would continue on May 31, 2020.
68. Plaintiff Avvocato brings this claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
V. DAMAGES
69. Plaintiff Avvocato seeks the following damages:
a. Past and future medical expenses
b. Past and future economic damages, including (but not limited to) loss of earning
capacity;
c. Past and future physical pain and mental anguish;
d. Past and future impairment;
e. Past and future disfigurement; and
f. Attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
10
Case 1:22-cv-00516-RP Document 1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 11 of 11
VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
70. To right this injustice, Plaintiff requests the Court:
g. Award compensatory damages against the City of Austin,;
h. Award Plaintiff costs and fees, including but not limited to expert fees and
attorneys' fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988;
i. Award pre-judgement and post-judgment interest at the highest rate allowable
under the law; and,
j. Award and grant such other just relief as the Court deems proper.
Dated: May 26, 2022
Respectfully submitted,
CAMPOS LAW GROUP, P.L.L.C.,
By:
/s/ Ryan K. Brent
Ryan K. Brent
Texas State Bar No. 24040571
2211 South Interstate 35, Suite 302
Austin, TX 78741
Tel. No. (512) 672-6585
Fax No. (512) 532-6810
E-mail: ryan@acamposlaw.com
and
Sico, Hoelscher & Harris LLP
JAMES H. HADA
Texas Bar No. 08671050
Three Riverway, Ste. 1910
Houston, Texas 77056
Phone: (713) 465-9944
Fax: (877) 521-5576
jhada@shhlaw.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
11
Case 1:22-cv-00516-RP Document 1-1 Filed 05/27/22 Page 1 of 1
JS4 (Rev. 10/20)
CIVIL COVER SHEET
The IS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained heroin neither replace nor supplement the filing. service of pleadings another papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for use of the Glerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXTLAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS
DEFENDANTS
Sage Avvocato
City of Austin
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff
El Paso
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(EXCEPT IN U.S PLAINTIFF CASES)
(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE:
IN LAND CONDEMNATION GASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
TRACT OR LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name. Address and Telephone Number)
Campos Law Group, 2211 S. IH 35, Austin, TX 78741
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an RX in One Bar Only)
III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES
(Place an win One Box for Plaintly
(For Diversity Cases Only)
and One Box for Defendant)
1
U.S. Government
3 Federal Question
PTF
DER
FTF
DEF
Plaintiff
(U.S. Government Not if Party)
Citizen of This State
I
1
Incorporated or Principal Place
4
4
of Business In This State
2 U.S. Government
4 Diversity
Gitizen of Another State
2
2 Incorporated and Principal Piscc
5
5
Defendant
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
of Business In Another State
Gitizen or Subject of a
3
3 Foreign Nation
6
6
Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place
on
"X"
in
One
Bar
Only)
Click hereifort Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT
TORTS
FORFEITURE/RENALTY
BANKRUPTCY
OTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance
PERSONAL INJURY
PERSONAL INJURY
625 Drug Related Seizure
422 Appeal 28 use 158
375 False Claims Act
120 Marine
310 Airplane
365 Personal Injury -
of Property 21 USC KXI
423 Withdrawal
376 Qui Tem (31 USG
130 Miller Act
315 Airplane Product
Product Liability
690 Other
28 USC.157
3729(a))
140 Negotiable Instrument
Liability
367 Health Care
400 State Reapportionment
150 Recovery of Overpayment
320 Assault, Libel &
Pharmaceutical
PROPERTY RIGHTS
410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment
Slander
Personal Injury
E20 Copyrights
430 Banks and Banking
151 Medicare Act
330 Federal Employers'
Product Liability
830 Patent
450 Commerce
Liability
368 Asbesios Personal
835 -Abbreviated
152 Recovery of Defaulted
460 Deportation
Student Loans
340 Marine
Injury Product
New Drug Application
470 Rackeleen Influenced and
345 Marine Product
Liability
840 Trademark
(Excludes Veterans)
Corrupt Organizations
153 Recovery of Overpayment
Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY
LABOR
880 Defend Trac Sécrets
480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran's Benefits
350 Motor Vehicle
370 Other Praud
710 Fair Labor Standards
Act of 2016
(15 USC 1681 or 1692)
160 Stockholders' Suits
355 Motor Vehicle
371 Truth in Lending
Act
485 Telephone Consumer
190 Other Contract
Product Liability
380 Other Personal
720 Labor/Management
SOCIAL
Protection Act
195 Contract Product Liability
360 Other Personal
Property Damage
Relations
861THIA (1395M)
490 Cable/SatiTV
196 Franchise
Injury
385 Property Damage
740 Railway Labor Act
862 Black Lung (923)
850 Scounting/Commudities/
362 Personal Injury
Product Liability
751 Family and Medical
863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Exchange
Medical Malpractice
L'cave Act
864 SSID Title XVI
890 OtherStatatory Actions
PROPERTY
GIVERGITS
PRISONERPETTIONS
790 Other Labor Litigation
865 RSI (405(g))
891 Agricultural Acts
210 Land Condemnation
440 Other Civil Rights
Habeas Corpus:
791 Employee Retirement
393EEnvironmental Matters
220 Foreclosure
441 Voting
463 Alien Detainee
Income Security Act
FEDERALITAXI
895 Freedom of Information
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
442 Employment
510 Motions to Vacate
870 Trues (U.S. Plaintiff
Act
240 Torts to Land
443 Housing
Sentence
or Defendant)
896 Albitration
245 Tort Product Liability
Accommodations
530 General
871 ERS-Third Party
899 Administrative Procedure
290 All Other Real Property
445 Amer. w/Disabilities
535 Death Penalty
IMMIGRATION
26 USC 7609
Act/Review or Appeal of
Employment
Other:
462 Naturalization Application
Agency Decision
446 Amer. w/Disabilities
540 Mandamus & Other
465 Other Immigration
950 Constitutionality of
Other
550 Civil Rights
Actions
State Statutes
448 Education
555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an "X" in One Box Only)
1 Original
2 Removed from
3
Remanded from
4 Reinstated or
5 Transferred from
6 Multidistrict
8 Multidistrict
Proceeding
State Court
Appellate Court
Reopened
Another District
Litigation
Litigation
(specify)
Transfer
Direct Hile
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
42.U.S.C.1983
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION
Brief description of cause.
Excessive Use of Force by APD During anti-police brutality protest
VII. REQUESTED IN
CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
DEMAND'S
GHECK YES only if demanded in complaint
COMPLAINT:
UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
JURY/DEMAND:
Yes
No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
IF ANY
(See instructions).
JUDGE
DOCKET NUMBER
DATE
RECORD
05/27/2022
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT
AMOUNT
APPLYING.IFP
JUDGE
MAC JUDGE
Case 1:22-cv-00516-RP Document 4 Filed 06/23/22 Page 1 of 7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
SAGE AVVOCATO,
§
Plaintiff,
§
§
V.
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:22-cv-00516-RP
§
CITY OF AUSTIN,
§
Defendant.
§
§
§
DEFENDANT CITY OF AUSTIN'S ANSWER AND
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE ROBERT PITMAN:
Defendant City of Austin ("Defendant" or the "City") files this Answer and Affirmative
Defenses to Plaintiff Sage Avvocato's Original Complaint (Doc. No. 1). Pursuant to Rules 8 and
12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant respectfully shows the Court as follows:
ORIGINAL ANSWER
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b), Defendant responds to each of the
specific averments in the Original Complaint as set forth below. To the extent that Defendant does
not address a specific averment made by Plaintiff Sage Avvocato ("Plaintiff" or "Avvocato"),
Defendant expressly denies that averment.
1
Defendant denies the allegations contained in the first unnumbered paragraph in Plaintiff's
Original Complaint.
1.
Upon information and belief, Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 1.
1 Paragraph numbers in Defendant's Answer correspond to the paragraphs in Plaintiff's Original Complaint.
Case 1:22-cv-00516-RP Document 4 Filed 06/23/22 Page 2 of
7
2.
Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 2.
3.
Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 3.
4.
Defendant admits that this Court has general personal jurisdiction over the Defendant.
5.
Defendant admits that this Court has specific in personam jursiction over the
Defendant. Defendant denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 5.
6.
Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 6.
7.
Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations contained in Paragraph 7 and therefore denies the same.
8.
Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations contained in Paragraph 8 and therefore denies the same.
9.
Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations contained in Paragraph 9 and therefore denies the same.
10.
Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations contained in Paragraph 10 and therefore denies the same.
11.
Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations contained in Paragraph 11 and therefore denies the same.
12.
Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations contained in Paragraph 12 and therefore denies the same.
13.
Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations contained in Paragraph 13 and therefore denies the same.
14.
Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations contained in Paragraph 14 and therefore denies the same.
Page 2 of 7
Case 1:22-cv-00516-RP Document 4 Filed 06/23/22 Page 3 of 7
15.
Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations contained in Paragraph 15 and therefore denies the same.
16.
Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations contained in Paragraph 16 and therefore denies the same.
17.
Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 17.
18.
Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 18.
19.
Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 19.
20.
Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 20.
21.
Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 21.
22.
Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 22.
23.
Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 23.
24.
Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 24.
25.
Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 25.
26.
Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 26.
27.
Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 27.
28.
Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 28.
29.
Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations contained in Paragraph 29 and therefore denies the same.
30.
Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations contained in Paragraph 30 and therefore denies the same.
31.
Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations contained in Paragraph 31 and therefore denies the same. protest.
32.
Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 32.
Page 3 of 7
Case 1:22-cv-00516-RP Document 4 Filed 06/23/22 Page 4 of 7
33.
Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 33.
34.
Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 34.
35.
Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 35.
36.
Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 36.
37.
Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 37.
38.
Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 38.
39.
Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 39.
40.
Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 40.
41.
Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 41.
42.
Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations contained in Paragraph 42 and therefore denies the same.
43.
Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations contained in Paragraph 43 and therefore denies the same.
44.
Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations contained in Paragraph 44 and therefore denies the same.
45.
Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 45.
46.
Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 46.
47.
Upon information and belief, Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph
47.
48.
Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations contained in Paragraph 48 and therefore denies the same.
49.
Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations contained in Paragraph 49 and therefore denies the same.
Page 4 of 7
Case 1:22-cv-00516-RP Document 4 Filed 06/23/22 Page 5 of 7
50.
Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 50.
51.
Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 51.
52.
Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations contained in Paragraph 52 and therefore denies the same.
53.
Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations contained in Paragraph 53 and therefore denies the same.
54.
Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 54.
55.
Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 55.
56.
Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 56.
57.
Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 57.
58.
Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations contained in Paragraph 58 and therefore denies the same.
59.
Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 59.
60.
Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 60.
61.
Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 61.
62.
Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 62.
63.
Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 63.
64.
Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 64.
65.
Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 65.
66.
Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 66.
67.
Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 67.
68.
Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 68.
69.
Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 69.
Page 5 of 7
Case 1:22-cv-00516-RP Document 4 Filed 06/23/22 Page 6 of 7
70.
Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 70 and specifically denies that
the Plaintiff is entitled to any relief whatsoever of and from the Defendant.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1.
Defendant City of Austin asserts the affirmative defense of governmental immunity as
a municipal corporation entitled to immunity while acting in the performance of its governmental
functions, absent express waiver.
2.
Defendant City of Austin asserts the affirmative defense of governmental immunity
since its employees are entitled to qualified/official immunity for actions taken in the course and
scope of their employment, absent express waiver.
3. As a political subdivision, Defendant City of Austin denies that it can be liable for
exemplary/punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
4.
Defendant reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses throughout the
development of the case.
DEFENDANT'S PRAYER
Defendant City of Austin prays that all relief requested by Plaintiff be denied, that the Court
dismiss this case with prejudice, and that the Court award Defendant costs and attorney's fees, and
any additional relief to which it is entitled under law or equity.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
ANNE L. MORGAN, CITY ATTORNEY
MEGHAN RILEY, CHIEF, LITIGATION
/s/ H. Gray Laird III
State Bar No. 24087054
City of Austin
P.O. Box 1546
Austin, Texas 78767-1546
gray.laird@austintexas.gov
Page 6 of 7
Case 1:22-cv-00516-RP Document 4 Filed 06/23/22 Page 7 of 7
City of Austin
P.O. Box 1546
Austin, Texas 78767-1546
Telephone (512) 974-1342
Facsimile (512) 974-1311
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT CITY OF
AUSTIN
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on the 23rd day of June, 2022, I served a copy of Defendant City of Austin's
Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's Original Complaint on all parties, by and through
their attorney of record, in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Via CM/ECF:
Ryan K. Brent
State Bar No. 24040571
ryan@acamposlaw.com
Campos Law Group P.L.L.C.
2211 South Interstate 35, Suite 302
Austin, Texas 78741
Telephone: (512) 672-6585
Facsimile: (512) 532-6810
James H. Hada
State Bar No. 08671050
jhada@shhlaw.com
Sico, Hoelscher & Harris LLP
Three Riverway, Ste. .1910
Houston, Texas 77056
Telephone: (713) 465-9944
Fax: (877) 521-5576
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
/s/ H. Gray Laird III
H. GRAY LAIRD III
Page 7 of 7
Case 1:22-cv-00516-RP Document 16 Filed 11/01/23 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
SAGE AVVOCATO,
§
§
Plaintiff,
§
§
V.
§
1:22-CV-516-RP
§
CITY OF AUSTIN,
§
§
Defendant.
§
ORDER
On September 21, 2023, the parties in this case filed a joint advisory to the Court stating that
the parties in this case had reached a settlement and that the trial setting of December 4, 2023,
would not be necessary. (Dkt. 15). The parties indicated that they would file a dismissal of the action
upon completion of the settlement document within thirty days. (Id.). Since this date, the parties
have not filed dismissal papers nor any other filing in this case.
Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED to file dismissal papers or a status report on the
finalization of the settlement or before November 8, 2023.
SIGNED on November 1, 2023.
Room
ROBERT PITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:22-cv-00516-RP Document 18 Filed 11/15/23 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
Sage Avvocato
§
§
CIVIL NO:
VS.
§
AU:22-CV-00516-RP
§
City of Austin, Texas Austin Police
§
Department
ORDER CANCELLING JURY SELECTION AND TRIAL
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above entitled and numbered case having been set
for JURY SELECTION AND TRIAL on Monday, December 04, 2023 at 09:00 AM is
hereby CANCELLED until further order of the court.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 15th day of November, 2023.
Room
ROBERT PITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE