Motion to Amend in Qijun "Randy" Ran et al. vs Stockton Unified School District et al.| Trellis.Law

On March 25, 2021 a Complaint,Petition was filed involving a dispute between Qijun "Randy" Ran, *Ran, Qijun, and Stockton Unified School District, *Stockton Unified School District, A California Municipal Corporation Doing Business In Stockton California, Stockton Unified School District Police Officers, for Unlimited Civil Non-PI/PD/WD (Other) Tort in the District Court of San Joaquin County.

Preview
Electronically Filed
1 Clarence K. Chan, SBN 193244 Superior Court of California
Law Office of Clarence K. Chan, Prof. Corp. County of San Joaquin
2 3247 W. March Lane, Suite 120 2022-01-14 11:33:48
Stockton, CA 95219 Clerk: Taylor Hiedeman
3 209-473-8818

4
Attorney for Plaintiff
5

8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN

10 QIJUN “RANDY” RAN Case No. STK-CV-UNPI-2021-0002673
Plaintiff, Assigned for All Purposes to Dept. 10B,
11 Judge Erin Guy Castillo
v.
12
STOCKTON UNIFIED SCHOOL FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
13 DISTRICT, STOCKTON UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT POLICE
14 OFFICERS, DOES 1 to 100,

15 Defendants.

16
Plaintiff Qijun “Randy” Ran alleges as follows:
17

18 PARTIES

19 1. At all times relevant herein the Stockton Unified School District (hereinafter

20 sometimes “SUSD” or “School District”) is a public school district in the County of San
21
Joaquin, State of California, duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of
22
California.
23

1
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 2. At all times relevant defendants Stockton Unified School District Police Officers,
2
whose names are unknown to Plaintiff, were employed with the Stockton Unified
3
School District as police officers.
4
3. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities of defendants sued as Does
5
1 - 100, and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names under Code of
6

7 Civil Procedure section 474. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege their true

8 names and capacities when they have been ascertained.

9 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendants and each of
10
them are and were at all times mentioned herein the agent and employee, or principal
11
and employer of each of the other defendants and were at all times mentioned herein
12
acting within the course and scope of said agency and employment.
13
5. Plaintiff is informed and believes that each doe defendant is in some manner
14

15 responsible for the acts and occurrences that caused the damages suffered by Plaintiffs

16 and that each doe defendant acted as the principal, agent, employer, employee, alter

17 ego of each named defendant and/or other doe defendant.
18
CLAIMS STATUTE
19
6. On or about September 18, 2020, within one year of the accrual on September 20,
20
2019 of the cause of action against the School District, Plaintiff submitted an Application
21
for Leave to present Late Claim Against Public Entity to Defendant Stockton Unified
22

23 School District pursuant to Government Code § 911.4. The School District granted leave

24 to present a late claim. Thereafter, the claim was rejected on October 27, 2020.

2
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 STATEMENT OF FACTS
2 7. At all times herein mentioned Plaintiff Qijun “Randy” Ran was a resident of San
3
Joaquin County and of the State of California.
4
8. Plaintiff was, and continues to be, a student at the University of the Pacific. As
5
part of his training, Plaintiff also taught music classes at two high schools within the
6

7 School District, including the one from which he graduated. A minor high school

8 student “TM” is one of Plaintiff’s former student. Plaintiff also attended high school

9 with some of TM’s siblings.
10
9. Starting in 2018, TM communicated by texts and on social media with someone
11
known only as “Darren.” While Darren left paper notes and gifts for TM on campus,
12
TM never physically met Darren and never spoke on the telephone with Darren. The
13
relationship between TM and Darren grew more intense. In or around July 2019 Darren
14

15 reached out to Plaintiff on social media, asking Plaintiff to talk to TM and TM’s parents.

16 TM’s parents are also School District employees. Darren was worried that TM would

17 transfer schools, among other things.
18
10. Plaintiff obliged because he went to school with TM’s siblings and because he
19
wanted to help. Plaintiff communicated with TM by social media and also called TM’s
20
parents, asking them to not transfer TM to another school.
21
11. As the communications between TM and Darren continued, TM’s parents
22

23 suspected that Plaintiff was in fact Darren. TM’s parents accused Plaintiff of harassment

24 and other improper conduct by using the social media name “Darren”. TM’s parents

3
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 believed Plaintiff’s knowledge of the relationship between TM and Darren was too
2
coincidental.
3
12. TM’s parents reported Plaintiff to the School District Police Department, alleging
4
that Plaintiff repeatedly harassed TM and TM’s family and engaged in stalking
5
behavior of TM.
6

7 13. As a result of these allegations, Stockton Unified School District placed Plaintiff

8 on administrative leave from August 2019 to September 2019, only to be restored to his

9 position because the facts did not support placing him on leave.
10
14. On or about September 20, 2019, Plaintiff was at his residence at 321 West Pardee
11
Lane, Stockton, California, when more than ten School District Police Officers in half a
12
dozen marked cars stormed Plaintiff’s home and wrongfully arrested and imprisoned
13
Plaintiff.
14

15 15. In the process of the arrest, School District Police Officers also seized a number of

16 personal items including mobile phones, computers, and hard drives belonging to

17 Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s brother, and their roommates. Several of the personal items have not
18
been returned.
19
16. On or about September 20, 2019, Plaintiff was wrongfully arrested, detained,
20
imprisoned, or otherwise had his civil rights violated by Stockton Unified School
21
District. Due to negligent, incomplete, and substandard police investigation by Stockton
22

23 Unified School District and its employees and agents whose names are unknown,

24 Plaintiff suffered violations to his civil rights. Such wrongful conduct resulted in

4
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 personal injuries, reputational injuries, emotional distress, and property damages to
2
Plaintiff, the extent of which is currently unknown.
3
17. At the time of Plaintiff’s arrest, defendants Stockton Unified School District
4
Police Officers told Plaintiff that there was a warrant for Plaintiff’s arrest alleging
5
violation of California Penal Code §288.2(a)(1), §288.2(a)(2), §311.2(c), §311.3, §311.4(c),
6

7 §311.11, §528.5, §647j(4)(A), §422, and §653m. Plaintiff was transported to San Joaquin

8 Delta College Police Department for an interview. Plaintiff was advised of his Miranda

9 rights and thereafter requested an attorney. Plaintiff was then transported to San
10
Joaquin County Jail where he was booked for the warrant and on the above stated
11
charges.
12
18. Immediately after Plaintiff’s arrest, Stockton Unified School District published a
13
statement and otherwise made known to the general public that Plaintiff had been
14

15 arrested and was being investigated on suspicion of inappropriate conduct and

16 electronic communication over the web with a student. Stockton Unified School

17 District’s statement included “We will not tolerate behaviors that compromise the well-
18
being of our children.”
19
19. Plaintiff was held in custody for four days.
20
20. Plaintiff was arrested for allegedly sending repeated harassing and stalking
21
messages to TM using the name Darren.
22

23 21. The arrest warrant was issued without probable cause. The warrant was

24 requested and obtained based solely on the allegations made by TM’s parents. The only

25 additional investigation completed by School District Police Officers found that the

5
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 dates Plaintiff was on paid administrative leave approximately matched the dates that
2
no text messages were sent to TM’s family. Based on that mere coincidence, an arrest
3
warrant was issued for Plaintiff’s arrest.
4
22. Four days after Plaintiff’s arrest, on September 24, 2019, Stockton Unified School
5
District Police Officers contacted a Cesar Chavez High School Student “S” who claimed
6

7 to have had conversations with Darren over the past two years. S is a schoolmate of TM.

8 The incident reports do not state why the School District contacted S or how S was

9 identified.
10
23. At the same time, Stockton Unified School District Police Officers finally decided
11
to conduct further investigation into the IP address of Darren and the IP address of
12
Plaintiff. Through that investigation, Stockton Unified School District Police Officers
13
discovered that the IP addresses used by Darren were associated with S. In other words,
14

15 the IP addresses used by Darren were not associated with Plaintiff.

16 24. Prior to arresting Plaintiff, Stockton Unified School District Police Officers did

17 not conduct an investigation into the IP addresses used by Darren and the IP addresses
18
used by Plaintiff.
19
25. On November 4, 2019, S confessed to being Darren and being the person who
20
harassed and tormented TM. The student also confessed to contacting Plaintiff and
21
employing him as an unwitting middleman throughout the year-long relationship
22

23 between TM and Darren. S used Plaintiff because Plaintiff had attended high school

24 with S’s sister as well as TM’s brother. S never told Plaintiff that S had posed as both

25 TM and Darren in social media communications with Plaintiff.

6
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 26. The District Attorney’s Office declined to prosecute Plaintiff on the charges for
2
which Plaintiff was arrested.
3
27. Instead of restoring Plaintiff to his position, in or about December 2019 Stockton
4
Unified School District made up additional charges against Plaintiff, ostensibly for
5
failing to report as a mandated reporter and contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
6

7 Plaintiff was only informed of the second round of charges through his academic

8 advisors at the University of the Pacific.

9 28. In August 2020, the District Attorney’s Office informed Plaintiff that no charges
10
would be brought against him.
11
29. In engaging in the conduct described herein defendants Stockton Unified School
12
District Police Officers acted under the color of law and in the course and scope of their
13
employment with the Stockton Unified School District. In engaging in the conduct
14

15 described herein defendants exceeded their authority vested in them as police officers

16 under the United States Constitution and the Constitution and the laws of the State of

17 California.
18
DAMAGES
19
30. As a direct and proximate result of the above-described conduct, acts, and
20
omissions, defendants have caused Plaintiff to suffer great fear and anxiety while
21
Plaintiff was imprisoned and continuing fear that Plaintiff will against be arrested
22

23 involving the same incident.

7
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 31. As a direct and proximate result of the above-described conduct, acts, and
2
omissions, defendants have caused Plaintiff to suffer irreparable damage to reputation
3
as a student, a teacher, and a community member.
4
32. Plaintiff found it necessary to engage the services of private counsel to vindicate
5
his rights under the law. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an award of all attorney’s fees
6

7 incurred in relation to this action for violation of his civil rights.

8 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of Civil Rights - 42 USC § 1983)
9
Comes now Plaintiff and as and for a first, separate and distinct cause of action
10

11 herein against defendants Doe 1 to 100 alleges as follows:

12 33. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein all of the allegations stated above as

13 though fully set forth herein.
14
34. This cause of action arises under the United States Civil Rights Act, 42 USC §
15
1983 et seq., as hereinafter more fully appears.
16
35. That at all times herein mentioned, defendants Doe 1 to 100 and each of them
17
were and are employees of governmental entities and agencies or acting in concert and
18

19 conspiracy with each other and with public and governmental entities and agencies or

20 employees of said governmental entities and agencies and in doing all, each and every

21 of the things hereinafter mentioned, defendants Doe 1 to 100 and each of them, acted
22
under color of law.
23
36. That all of the acts of the defendants Doe 1 to 100 were in violation of the
24
Plaintiff’s rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution of the United States
25

8
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 including but not limited to, the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution of
2
the United States and the Constitution of the State of California in that they interfered
3
with Plaintiff’s exercise and enjoyment of Plaintiff’s civil and constitutional rights,
4
including, but not limited to, the right to be free from unlawful arrest and
5
imprisonment without probable cause or pursuant to a valid warrant, and the right to
6

7 be free from violence or the threat of violence. Said interference was done without due

8 process of law which resulted in injuries to Plaintiff and was without probable cause.

9 37. The conduct of defendants Doe 1 to 100 was malicious, wanton, and oppressive
10
and defendants acted out of a deliberate and intentional desire and willingness to harm
11
and injure the Plaintiff and such conduct justifies an award of punitive and exemplary
12
damages and Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive and exemplary damages against
13
defendants Doe 1 to 100.
14

15 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment against defendants and each of them as

16 herein set forth.

17 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(False Arrest with Warrant – Govt. Code § 820.4)
18

19 Comes now Plaintiff and as and for a second, separate and distinct cause of action

20 herein against all defendants and each of them and alleges as follows:

21 38. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein all of the allegations stated above as
22
though fully set forth in this cause of action, except for any and all allegations of
23
intention, malicious, extreme, outrageous, wanton, and oppressive conduct by
24
defendants, and any and all allegations requesting punitive damages.
25

9
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 39. On or about September 20, 2019, Plaintiff was wrongfully arrested, detained, or
2
imprisoned without legal process by Stockton Unified School District and its
3
employees. At all times herein mentioned, defendants and each of them were subject to
4
a duty of care to determine that probable cause existed prior to obtaining an arrest
5
warrant. No probable cause existed to support the arrest warrant or the arrest. The
6

7 wrongful conduct of defendants did not comply with the standard of care to be

8 exercised by reasonable police officers, proximately causing Plaintiff to suffer injuries

9 and damages as set forth herein.
10
40. As a direct and proximate result of defendants and their conduct, Plaintiff
11
suffered severe emotional and mental distress, injury having a traumatic effect on
12
Plaintiff’s emotional tranquility, and suffered damages as herein set forth.
13
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment against defendants and each of them as
14

15 herein below set forth.

16
PRAYER
17
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against defendants, and each of them, as
18

19 hereinafter set forth:

20 1. For special and general damages for past, present and future psychological,

21 emotional and physical damage, pain, suffering, distress, and injury;
22
2. For psychological, psychiatric, medical, vocational, educational, and incidental
23
expenses in an amount to be proven;
24
3. For loss of wages and future earning capacity in an amount to be proven;
25

10
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 4. For costs of suit incurred herein; and
2
5. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
3
6. For attorney’s fees and costs for violations of Plaintiff’s civil rights.
4

5
DATED: January 14, 2022 Law Office of Clarence K. Chan, Prof. Corp.
6

7
By:
8
Clarence K. Chan, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff
9

11
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 PROOF OF SERVICE

2 CASE: Ran V. Stockton Unified School District, et al.
San Joaquin County Superior Court, Case No. STK-CV-UNPI-2021-0002673
3

4 I am employed in the County of San Joaquin, State of California. I am over the age of
eighteen (18) years and not a party to the above action. My business address is 3247 W.
5
March Lane, Suite 120, Stockton, California 95219. On the date below, I served the
6 following documents:

7 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

8 by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows:

9 Ryan Ichinaga
Spinelli | Donald | Nott
10
601 University Avenue, Suite 225
11 Sacramento, CA 95825
ryani@sdnlaw.com
12
I caused the envelope, with postage thereon fully prepaid, to be placed for collection
13 and mailing in Stockton, California, following our ordinary business practices. I am
readily familiar with this business’ practice for collecting and processing
14
correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for
15 collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United
States Postal Service.
16
✔ I caused the above documents to be electronically served at the electronic service
17 addresses listed. My electronic service address is cchan@chan-law.com. No electronic
message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful was received within
18
a reasonable time after the transmission.
19
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
20 above is true and correct. Executed on January 14, 2022 at Stockton, California.

21
CLARENCE K. CHAN
22

2
PROOF OF SERVICE

Case Info

Judge

Waters, Robert Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

January 14, 2022

Case Filing Date

March 25, 2021

County

Parties

Qijun "Randy" Ran Plaintiff
*Ran, Qijun (Randy) Plaintiff
Stockton Unified School District Defendant
*Stockton Unified School district, a California municipal corporation doing business in Stockton California Defendant
Stockton Unified School District Police Officers Defendant
Clarence Chan Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Laura Wolfe Attorneys for Defendants
Eric Grijalva Attorneys for Defendants
Lynn Garcia Attorneys for Defendants
Ryan Ichinaga Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Complaint,Petition: Qijun "Randy" Ran et al. vs Stockton Unified School District et al.

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties