Document16

- 1 - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Jeffery M. Hubins [State Bar No. 220657] [email protected] William F. Schauman [State Bar No. 210661] [email protected] SCHAUMAN & HUBINS 5700 Stoneridge Mall Road, Suite 130 Pleasanton, California 94588 Tel. (925) 846-5400 Fax (925) 846-5402 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF BRIAN LANCASTER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN LANCASTER, Plaintiff,

vs. CITY OF PLEASANTON; OFFICER TIM MARTENS; ALAMEDA COUNTY; DEPUTY SHERIFF RYAN SILCOCKS; LESLEY REGINA; LISA SECORD; LOUIS SECORD (aka TREY); and, DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants.

Case No. CV 12-5267 – WHA FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (1) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION

OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; (2) NEGLIGENCE; (3) NEGLIGENT HIRING,

RETENTION and SUPERVISION;

(4) DEFAMATION; (5) CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION

42 U.S.C. §1983; (6) CAL. CIVIL CODE § 52.1; (7) ABUSE OF PROCESS; (8) MALICIOUS

PROSECUTION; (9) FALSE ARREST / FALSE

IMPRISONMENT; (10) PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF

PRIVATE FACTS

Plaintiff, BRIAN LANCASTER, files this First Amended Complaint against all

Defendants, and each of them, demands a jury trial of all facts, issues, and causes of action, and

alleges as follows:

Case3:12-cv-05267-WHA Document9 Filed11/27/12 Page1 of 23


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PARTIES

1. At all material times relevant to this complaint, Plaintiff BRIAN LANCASTER

(“PLAINTIFF”) is and was a California resident, residing in the City of Pleasanton, California,

County of Alameda. PLAINTIFF is a citizen of the State of California.

2. Plaintiff is informed and believes that at all times herein mentioned Defendant

CITY OF PLEASANTON (“PLEASANTON”) is a municipal corporation located in the State of

California and the public employer of Defendant Officer TIM MARTENS.

3. At all material times relevant to this complaint, Defendant Officer TIM

MARTENS (“MARTENS”) was duly appointed and acting officer of the police department of

the City of Pleasanton, acting under color of law, color of statutes, ordinances, regulations,

policies, customs, and usages of the State of California and or City of Pleasanton.

4. Plaintiff is informed and believes that at all times herein mentioned Defendant

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA (“ALAMEDA”) is a municipal corporation located in the State of

California and the public employer of Defendant Officer RYAN SILCOCKS.

5. At all material times relevant to this complaint, Defendant Deputy Sheriff RYAN

SLCOCKS (“SILCOCKS”) was duly appointed and acting officer of the Alameda County

Sheriff’s Department, acting under color of law, color of statutes, ordinances, regulations,

policies, customs, and usages of the State of California and or County of Alameda.

6. At all material times relevant to this complaint, Defendant LESLEY ANNE

REGINA (“REGINA”) is and was a California resident, residing in the State of California.

REGINA is and has been a licensed attorney in the State of California since 2000, California

State Bar Number 209541, with a law practice under the name of Law Office of Lesley Regina,

operating in Contra Costa County, State of California.

7. At all material times relevant to this complaint, Defendant LISA SECORD

(“LISA”) is and was a Washington state resident, residing in the State of Washington. LISA is a

citizen of the State of Washington.

8. At all material times relevant to this complaint, Defendant LOUIS SECORD

(“TREY”) is and was a Washington state resident, residing in the State of Washington. TREY is



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a citizen of the State of Washington. LOUIS “TREY” SECORD is also referred to and uses the

name of TREY SECORD.

9. Defendants TREY and LISA are husband and wife and PLAINTIFF is informed

and believes that they are married under the laws of the State of Washington.

10. The true names and capacities of the defendants sued as DOES 1 through 10,

inclusive, whether individual, private company, public entity, corporate, associate, agents, or

otherwise, are unknown to PLAINTIFF as the real names are not ascertainable or known to

PLAINTIFF because the police reports and other information have not yet been disclosed.

DOES defendants are sued under fictitious names under CCP §474 and Anderson v. Allstate Ins.

Co. (9th Cir. 1980) 630 F.2d 677). PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that each of the DOE

defendants were responsible in some way for the occurrences and injuries alleged in this

complaint, acted as an agent or employee of the other defendants and ratified the conduct of

other defendants.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

11. This court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1332 in that it is a civil

action between the citizens of different states in which the matter in controversy exceeds,

exclusive of costs and interest, $75,000.00.

12. This court also has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 as the action

arises under the fourth, fifth, and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution, and

involves a federal question under 28 U.S.C. §1983.

FACTS

13. PLAINTIFF and LISA were a previously married couple that later divorced. In

2008 PLAINTIFF and LISA started what proved to be an epic custody battle, with LISA

resorting to every possible tactic to obtain favor of the courts, thereby being granted custody.

LISA filed restraining order one after another with false declarations in effort to mislead the

court into improperly granting stay-away orders. LISA recruited PLAINTIFF’S ex-girlfriend to

assist in her efforts by convincing PLAINTIFF’S ex-girlfriend into filing for restraining orders

also based false declarations. LISA recruited attorney REGINA to obtain confidential material



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

police material for the purpose of initiating legal proceedings and police investigations against

PLAINTIFF. TREY, LISA’S husband, recruited his friend, MARTENS, to arrest PLAINTIFF

by improperly planting false evidence on PLAINTIFF. SILCOCKS and MARTENS used their

positions as law enforcement officers to unlawfully obtain and disclose confidential information

about PLAINTIFF to LISA, REGINA and TREY. TREY, LISA and REGINA knowingly and

unlawfully obtained receipt of confidential information about PLAINTIFF with the intent to use

such information in initiating legal proceedings against PLAINTIFF. Each conspired with

another to in an effort to cause PLAINTIFF harm by violating his rights and privacy.

14. LISA lied to the courts in California and Washington to gain advantage in her

custody dispute with PLAINTIFF, not out of the love and affection a mother should have for her

children, but out of the festering hate she possesses towards her ex-husband, PLAINTIFF. LISA

fraudulently informed the family law courts that PLAINTIFF was a grave threat to her and their

children.

15. LISA falsely declared under penalty of perjury that PLAINTIFF threatened to kill

her and then commit suicide. She also declared that PLAINTIFF had plans to have his brother

kidnap their children following PLAINTIFF’S supposed murder-suicide plan. LISA falsely

accused PLAINTIFF of rape in a public forum. The false statements made by LISA about

PLAINTIFF caused harm and injury to PLAINTIFF’S reputation.

16. LISA is married to Defendant TREY SECORD. TREY and LISA are friends

with Defendant TIM MARTENS. Defendant MARTENS is a sworn police officer in the City of

Pleasanton.

17. TREY operates an online business selling remote controlled cars. PLAINTIFF is

informed and believes that Defendant MARTENS and TREY met through the online business,

and that they have email and telephone communications with each other.

18. LISA and defendant LESLEY REGINA know each other and are friends.

REGINA is an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California, with an office at 18

Crow Canyon Court, Suite 340, San Ramon, California 94583.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

19. Defendant RYAN SILCOCKS is a sworn Alameda County Deputy Sheriff.

SILCOCKS and REGINA were involved in a dating relationship with each other. REGINA

asked SILCOCKS to obtain confidential, private background information regarding PLAINTIFF

BRIAN LANCASTER, and provide that information to her for her personal use. On January 15,

17, and February 21, 2012, SILCOCKS used the Alameda County Sheriff’s database to access

otherwise confidential information regarding PLAINTIFF, including information from the

California Department of Motor Vehicles, Clets, NCIC and CORPUS.

20. On January 17, 2012, SILCOCKS sent an email to [email protected] asking

requesting a search for weapons registered to Brian Lancaster. In the January 17 email

SILCOCKS states that PLAINTIFF was arrested on January 16, 2012, and that an AK-47

magazine was found during the search. SILCOCKS continues stating that PLAINTIFF has

multiple domestic violence restraining orders, and is a “known crystal methamphetamine

addict.” SILCOCKS stated in the email that “two females are currently in danger.” SILCOCKS

had never before met PLAINTIFF nor had PLAINTIFF ever been arrested or convicted for drug

use or possession. SILCOCKS made the representations about PLAINTIFF knowing they were

false. Making such representations about PLAINTIFF were defamatory and caused damage to

PLAINTIFF’S reputation.

21. On January 23, 2012, SILCOCKS forwarded the email string between him and

[email protected] to REGINA. The email string he forwarded to REGINA contained

confidential information form the California Department of Motor Vehicles, Clets, NCIC and

CORPUS pertaining to PLAINTIFF. In his email to REGINA he states, “YOU DIDN’T GET

THIS FROM ME AND IF YOU FORWARD CUT AND PASTE INTO A NEW EMAIL. THIS

IS ALL CONFIDENTIAL INFO.” SILCOCKS asked that Regina keep the information about

PLAINTIFF confidential because he knew he was not authorized to obtain, use or provide the

information about PLAINTIFF to others.

22. On January 23, 2012, REGINA forwarded the confidential information she

unlawfully obtained from SILCOCKS to another person. REGINA knew that possessing and

circulating the information she obtained from SILCOCKS was unlawful, but did so despite her



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

knowledge and oath as an officer of the court. She stated in her email, “Please keep

confidential.” REGINA mistakenly forgot to delete SILCOCKS’S name form the email string,

thereby disclosing his involvement. REGINA and SILCOCKS were acting in concert to obtain,

disclose and use the confidential information they obtained on PLAINTIFF without proper

authorization. They further knew their activities were unlawful but acted in such an unlawful

manner despite their knowledge.

23. On February 21, 2012 SILCOCKS again accessed the County database searching

for records pertaining to PLAINTIFF, including PLAINTIFF’S DMV driver’s license status.

SILCOCKS then sent a cell phone text message about PLAINTIFF’S driver’s license status to

REGINA.

24. REGINA sent the information she obtained from SILCOCKS to her friend LISA.

LISA used the information she obtained from REGINA to obtain an advantage in her custody

dispute by filing the information by way of declaration and testimony with the court, therefore

making the information available to the world.

25. SILCOCKS and REGINA have both been accused of violating the California

Penal Code and committing misdemeanor crimes. Each were charged by the district attorney’s

office and were ordered to be booked by the judge presiding over the criminal cases. REGINA

was charged with violating Penal Code §13304, a misdemeanor, for receipt and possession of

record of unauthorized person. SILCOCKS was charged by the district attorney’s office for

violating 502(c), knowingly and unlawfully accessing data from county computers; violating

section 13302 of the penal code by the unauthorized furnishing of a local criminal record to

another unauthorized person; and, violating the California Vehicle Code § 1808.45 by willfully

making an unauthorized disclosure of DMV information to other unauthorized people.

26. ALAMEDA employs SILCOCKS. PLAINTIFF made complaints with

ALAMEDA about SILCOCKS. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that SILCOCKS was

investigated by ALAMEDA for researching confidential information about PLAINTIFF.

ALAMEDA did nothing to discipline SILCOCKS even after its investigation. PLAINTIFF

alleges that ALAMEDA failed to conduct a thorough investigation and failed to properly



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

supervise SILCOCKS even after complaints were made about SILCOCKS. SILCOCKS

unlawfully accessed PLAINTIFF’S records and disseminated those records to prohibited people

following the complaint and investigation. ALAMEDA retained SILCOCKS following

PLAINTIFF’S and other peoples complaints, thereby permitting SILCOCKS to continue to

cause harm to PLAINTIFF on subsequent occasions. ALAMEDA hired and retained

SILCOCKS it knew or should have known that SILCOCKS was unfit for hire and retention.

27. Other non-party individuals made and filed citizen complaints with ALAMEDA

alleging that SILCOCKS was violating ALAMEDA’S rules of conduct. ALAMEDA failed to

properly investigate those complaints and failed to take proper disciplinary actions against

SILCOCKS. ALAMEDA negligently retained SILCOCKS even after receiving complaints

about SILCOCKS.

28. REGINA, LISA and SILCOCKS made contact with a person named Gabrielle

Stevens. Ms. Stevens and PLAINTIFF had a dating relationship following PLAINTIFF and

LISA’S separation. LISA, REGINA and SILCOCKS convinced Ms. Stevens to file two

restraining orders against PLAINTIFF, one in December 2011 and one in March 2012. Neither

was granted, although a temporary order was granted until the merits of the permanent injunction

could be heard. The permanent injunction was ultimately denied. LISA falsely stated to Ms.

Stevens that PLAINTIFF physically abused LISA, that he threatened to kill LISA, that Ms.

Stevens should fear for her own life as PLAINTIFF would kill her, and that PLAINTIFF likely

placed cameras throughout Ms. Stevens’ house.

29. LISA placed false information on internet blogs accusing PLAINTIFF using

illegal drug use, methamphetamine use, and child molestation and abuse. LISA telephoned

women PLAINTIFF was dating and informed them that he was physically abusive towards

women, possessed guns unlawfully, and used illegal drugs. LISA also informed women

PLAINTIFF was dating that they should be concerned for their and their children’s safety as

PLAINTIFF was a dangerous person. LISA made these false accusations about PLAINTIFF in

an effort to interfere with PLAINTIFF’S personal intimate relationships with other women.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

30. LISA, SILCOCKS and REGINA worked in concert to convince Ms. Stevens to

file restraining orders against PLAINTIFF. LISA, SILCOCKS and REGINA convinced Ms.

Stevens to sign declarations then changed the court papers without Ms. Stevens’s knowledge

after she had signed the court papers.

31. PLAINTIFF met with attorney REGINA in the summer of 2011 at her San

Ramon office for the purpose of discussing legal issues and obtaining legal consultation in regard

to LISA placing a GPS tracking device on PLAINTIFF’S vehicle without his consent. REGINA

provided PLAINTIFF with legal advice and consult. During that meeting, PLAINTIFF disclosed

confidential information to REGINA. By way of their meeting and consultation, REGINA was

engaged as PLAINTIFF’S attorney. REGINA owed PLAINTIFF a duty of loyalty and has an

obligation not to act against his interest. REGINA acted as PLAINTIFF’S attorney and

PLAINTIFF was REGINA’S client.

32. REGINA violated her professional obligations as an attorney by representing an

adverse party against PLAINTIFF’S interest and by violating the duty of loyalty to PLAINTIFF.

REGINA represented Ms. Stevens in her efforts to obtain a restraining order on Ms. Stevens’s

behalf against PLAINTIFF in December 2011 and again on March 2012. REGINA represented

and assisted Ms. Stevens from December 2011 through March 2012, after she represented

PLAINTIFF. REGINA prepared and filed declarations for Ms. Stevens. REGINA encouraged

LISA, SILCOCKS and Ms. Stevens to take affirmative actions against PLAINTIFF’S interest,

including obtaining their statements in an effort to initiate an investigation against PLAINTIFF

with the Department of Justice. REGINA also sent SILCOCKS, LISA and Ms. Stevens

proposed “talking points” and answers to various questions that might be asked by the

Department of Justice. REGINA also encouraged Ms. Stevens to move forward with a

restraining order against PLAINTIFF. PLAINTIFF was harmed and incurred costs as a result of

REGINA’S actions.

33. On or around January 18, 2012 REGINA requested the California Department of

Justice initiate an investigation and search of PLAINTIFF’S house. REGINA sent to the

Department of Justice copies of the restraining order she obtain against PLAINTIFF on behalf of



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Ms. Stevens. REGINA also informed the Department of Justice that PLAINTIFF was arrested

on January 17, 2012 from confidential information she improperly obtained from MARTENS,

the SECORDS and SILCOCKS. REGINA knowingly and unlawfully obtained and disclosed

PLAINTIFF’S arrest information. REGINA falsely informed the Department of Justice that

PLAINTIFF possessed firearms and ammunition in violation of court order. REGINA knew that

PLAINTIFF did not possess the firearms and ammunition she told the Department of Justice

PLAINTIFF had. REGINA knowingly and intentionally provided false and or misleading

information to the Department of Justice. REGINA worked with the Pleasanton Police

Department in an effort to have PLAINTIFF’S house searched. She was told to contact the

Pleasanton Police Department

34. The Department of Justice initiated an investigation into PLAINTIFF based upon

the false, misleading and improper information provided to it by REGINA. The Department of

Justice used the information provided to it by REGINA to obtain a search warrant of

PLAINTIFF’S house, vehicle and computer. The Department of Justice conducted its search.

35. REGINA unlawfully obtained the confidential information only available for law

enforcement purposes to cause damage and harm to PLAINTIFF. REGINA was not permitted to

maintain or obtain possession of the documents given to her by MARTENS or SILCOCKS. She

used her personal relationship with officers and the guise of her professional license to obtain

information about PLAINTIFF that she knowingly used to institute legal action against him and

to his detriment.

36. Louis “TREY” Secord maintains a website and blog having to do with remote

control cars. Officer Tim Martens (“MARTENS”) is a sworn officer employed with the

Pleasanton Police Department. Through the website, MARTENS and TREY became friends.

37. MARTENS and TREY emailed each other about PLAINTIFF. TREY and

MARTENS communicated with one another about TREY, LISA, REGINA, and SILCOCK’S

efforts to have PLAINTIFF falsely arrested to gain advantage in the child custody dispute

between LISA and PLAINTIFF and in an act of revenge against PLAINTIFF. MARTENS was

informed that LISA and PLAINTIFF had a custody hearing approaching in the family law



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

courts. MARTENS was asked by LISA, SILCOCKS, TREY and REGINA to arrest

PLAINTIFF.

38. MARTENS used his position as a law enforcement officer to conduct

unauthorized research and obtain confidential information about PLAINTIFF, even though

MARTENS was not conducting official police business. MARTENS and TREY emailed each

other the confidential and unlawfully obtained and possessed information about PLAINTIFF.

On January 16, 2012, MARTENS used his position as a law enforcement officer to effectuate a

traffic stop against PLAINTIFF.

39. Initially MARTENS falsely accused PLAINTIFF of unlawfully possessing illegal

drugs and drug paraphernalia. MARTENS knowingly filed a false police report and caused

PLAINTIFF to be falsely arrested based on the false evidence. PLAINTIFF was booked and

charged with the crimes MARTENS falsely accused PLAINTIFF of committing. As a result,

PLAINTIFF was jailed in Santa Rita jail for the crimes he was falsely accused of committing by

MARTENS. LISA, SILCOCKS and REGINA also participated in the arrest of PLAINTIFF by

providing false information to MARTENS in effort to have MARTENS arrest PLAINTIFF. In

fact, on or about January 23, 2012, LISA and/or TREY requested that MARTENS file a

supplemental/amendment to the initial arrest report stating that he found ammunition in

PLAINTIFF’s vehicle at the time of PLAINTIFF’s January 16, 2012 arrest to give the

Department of Justice probable cause to search PLAINTIFF’s home for weapons.

40. MARTENS violated city, state and federal law and Pleasanton Police Department

policies, rules and regulations by falsely arresting PLAINTIFF, and by falsely planting evidence.

MARTENS unlawfully detained PLAINTIFF and conducted a search of PLAINTIFF and his

vehicle and in violation of state and federal law and police procedure and practices. MARTENS

caused PLAINTIFF to be arrested and jailed against his will, caused PLAINTIFF to have an

arrest record, and caused criminal charges to be filed against PLAINTIFF based upon the false

evidence placed on PLAINTIFF’S person and car. MARTENS caused the Office of District

Attorney to file charges against PLAINTIFF for unlawful drug possession. Ultimately, all

criminal charges arising from the arrest made by TIM MARTENS against PLAINTIFF were



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

dismissed by the District Attorney. PLAINTIFF was forced to incur embarrassment, emotional

distress, and anxiety as a result of MARTENS, LISA, SILCOCKS and REGINA’S actions.

Further, PLAINTIFF incurred attorney fees in effort to fight the charges based on the false

information each person provided.

41. PLAINTIFF previously purchased and owned a number of firearms. Due to the

temporary restraining order placed against him by Ms. Stevens, PLAINTIFF was prohibited from

having possession of the firearms. LISA falsely reported to the police that PLAINTIFF

possessed several firearms in violation of court order. LISA knew that PLAINTIFF did not

possess the firearms, yet she informed the police he did despite the truth. LISA knew that

PLAINTIFF did not possess the firearms otherwise prohibited by court order because she herself

had possession of them. Likewise, REGINA, MARTENS, and SILCOCKS also knew that

PLAINTIFF did not possess firearms he was forbidden possessing based on conversations

defendants had with one another.

42. LISA told and informed REGINA that LISA possessed the firearms that belonged

to PLAINTIFF. LISA and REGINA attempted to have PLEASANTON obtain a search warrant

based on the false information of PLAINTIFF possessing firearms. LISA and REGINA

knowingly provided false information to the Department of Justice and Pleasanton Police

Department that PLAINTIFF possessed several firearms in violation of court order and in effort

to obtain a search warrant against PLAINTIFF’S residence and to have PLAINTIFF arrested.

PLEASANTON knew that PLAINTIFF did not possess the firearms, yet they knowingly and

intentionally provided false information to the Department of Justice in order to obtain a search

warrant. PLAINTIFF was arrested and did have his residence searched based on the false

reporting by LISA and REGINA. REGINA and LISA reported PLAINTIFF as having the

firearms knowing LISA possessed them instead of PLAINTIFF. REGINA and LISA made the

false reporting to cause harm to PLAINTIFF, for personal gain, and not for lawful reasons.

43. MARTENS caused PLAINTIFF harm by knowingly and intentionally making

false arrest without probable cause, planting evidence, falsifying police reports, unlawfully

obtaining and disclosing PLAINTIFF’S personal and confidential information, initiating criminal



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

charges with the District Attorney’s Office, and aiding and conspiring with others to break the

law in effort to cause harm and violate PLAINTIFF’S rights and privacy.

44. LISA caused PLAINTIFF harm by knowingly and intentionally filing false

information with the courts and various law enforcement agencies and personnel; obtaining,

possessing and disseminating personal and confidential information pertaining to PLAINTIFF,

soliciting law enforcement officers and agencies to violate PLAINTIFFS rights and privacy,

violating PLAINTIFFS rights to privacy in his whereabouts by placing a GPS tracking device

onto PLAINTIFF’S property, by posting in a public forum false and defamatory information

about PLAINTIFF, by causing legal proceedings and law enforcement actions to be initiated

against PLAINTIFF based on information known by LISA to be false, intentionally interfering

with PLAINTIFF’S personal, family and intimate relationships with others, and aiding and

conspiring with others to break the law in effort to cause harm and violate PLAINTIFF’S rights

and privacy.

45. REGINA caused PLAINTIFF harm by knowingly and intentionally filing false



soliciting law enforcement officers and agencies to violate PLAINTIFFS rights and privacy, by

causing legal proceedings and law enforcement actions to be initiated against PLAINTIFF based

on information known by REGINA to be false, intentionally interfering with PLAINTIFF’S

personal, family and intimate relationships with others, and aiding and conspiring with others to

break the law in effort to cause harm and violate PLAINTIFF’S rights and privacy.

46. TREY caused PLAINTIFF harm by knowingly and intentionally filing false



soliciting law enforcement officers and agencies to violate PLAINTIFFS rights and privacy, by

causing legal proceedings and law enforcement actions to be initiated against PLAINTIFF based

on information known by TREY to be false, intentionally interfering with PLAINTIFF’S



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

personal, family and intimate relationships with others, and aiding and conspiring with others to

break the law in effort to cause harm and violate PLAINTIFF’S rights and privacy.

47. SILCOCKS caused PLAINTIFF harm by obtaining, possessing and disseminating

personal and confidential information pertaining to PLAINTIFF, soliciting law enforcement

officers and agencies to violate PLAINTIFFS rights and privacy, by causing legal proceedings

and law enforcement actions to be initiated against PLAINTIFF based on information known by

SILCOCKS to be false, intentionally interfering with PLAINTIFF’S personal, family and

intimate relationships with others, and aiding and conspiring with others to break the law in

effort to cause harm and violate PLAINTIFF’S rights and privacy.

48. PLEASANTON and ALAMEDA, the municipal entities employing each

defendant sworn officer, knew or should have known its respective officer employee was acting

in violation of the law. PLAINTIFF filed complaints with PLEASANTON and ALAMEDA

asking each to conduct an investigation, yet they refused or conducted a sham investigation.

49. PLEASANTON failed to investigate the complaints here made by PLAINTIFF

against MARTENS, failed to discipline MARTENS in light of the allegations and complaints,

and retained MARTENS in spite previous complaints made by others.

50. ALAMEDA failed to investigate the complaints here made by PLAINTIFF

against SILCOCKS, failed to discipline SILCOCKS in light of the allegations and complaints,

and retained SILCOCKS in spite previous complaints made by others.

51. Prior to committing the acts against PLAINTIFF as alleged here, other citizen

complaints were made with the COUNTY of ALAMEDA against SILCOCKS similar to those

types of allegations made here, involving dishonesty and abuse of power and authority. Despite

the other citizen’s complaints made against SILCOCKS, ALAMEDA hired retained and kept

SILCOCKS employed, failed to investigate, discipline and properly supervise SILCOCKS.

52. Prior to committing the acts against PLAINTIFF as alleged here, other citizen

complaints were made with the CITY OF PLEASANTON against MARTENS similar to those

types of allegations made here, involving dishonesty and abuse of power and authority. Despite

the other citizen’s complaints made against MARTENS, CITY OF PLEASANTON hired



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

retained and kept MARTENS employed, failed to investigate, discipline and properly supervise

MARTENS.

53. REGINA repeatedly asked ALAMEDA COUNTY for assistance with having

PLEASANTON pursue a search warrant from the Department of Justice to search PLAINTIFF’S

house based on the false police report completed by TIM MARTENS. ALAMEDA instructed

REGINA to call the Pleasanton Police Department and use them to obtain the search warrant.

54. REGINA, LESLEY and SILCOCKS have each been arrested and are being

criminally charged by the various District Attorney’s Offices in their respective jurisdictions

with criminal charges for their actions against PLAINTIFF.

55. PLAINTIFF has been harmed, injured and will continue to suffer harm and injury

by the actions or inactions of each and every one of defendants’ actions, including damages to

PLAINTIFF’S reputation, loss of custody of PLAINTIFF’S children, economic loss, loss of

relationships with others, and emotional pain, distress, suffering, angst and anxiety.

56. PLAINTIFF has filed all the necessary filings and complaints required to exhaust

any and all administrative remedies as otherwise required by law.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

57. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference in this cause of action paragraphs 1

through 56 inclusive as though fully set forth herein.

58. PLAINTIFF complains and alleges this cause of action against Defendants TREY

SECORD, LISA SECORD, and LESLEY REGINA.

59. Defendants conduct in doing the acts and or omissions as set forth above acted in

a manner that is outrageous.

60. Defendants, conduct in committing the outrageous acts or omissions, did so

intentionally or in reckless disregard of the probability of causing PLAINTIFF emotional

distress.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

61. As a result of the Defendants’ conduct, acts or omissions, PLAINTIFF suffered

severe or extreme emotional distress as the actual and proximate cause of Defendants’

outrageous conduct.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Negligence



63. PLAINTIFF complains and alleges this cause of action against each and every

Defendant above.

64. Defendants owed a legal duty of care to PLAINTIFF. Defendants breached their

legal duty by committing the acts and or omissions in carrying out the conduct as set forth above.

65. In Committing the acts or omissions described above, the Defendants were the

legal and proximate cause of PLAINTIFFS injuries.

66. PLAINTIFF suffered injuries as legally and proximately caused by Defendants’

conduct, action or inaction.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Negligent Hiring, Retention and Supervision



68. PLAINTIFF complains and alleges this cause of action against defendants

ALAMEDA and PLEASANTON.

69. Defendants ALAMEDA and PLEASANTON acted negligently by hiring,

supervising and or retaining officers SILCOCKS and MARTENS (respectively). Further,

Defendants ALAMEDA and PLEASANTON acted negligently by failing to adequately

supervise and retaining its officers (SILCOCKS and MARTENS). Defendants ALAMEDA and

PLEASANTON are liable for the negligent hiring, supervising and retaining of Defendants

SILCOCKS and MARTENS in this instance and with respect to PLAINTIFF. Defendants

ALAMEDA and PLEASANTON owed a duty of care to PLAINTIFF and maintained a special



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

relationship with PLAINTIFF. ALAMEDA and PLEASANTON knew of the potential harm

that its officers could cause to PLAINTIFF based on previous complaints about MARTENS and

SILCOCKS. ALAMEDA and PLEASANTON failed to properly conduct investigations into the

complaints. Further, a special relationship exists between the Defendants PLEASANTON and

ALAMEDA with PLAINTIFF in that each owed PLAINTIFF a duty to protect PLAINTIFF and

the public, owed PLAINTIFF a duty to keep confidential information it retained about

PLAINTIFF confidential and not provide it to the general public.

70. Defendant ALAMEDA and PLEASANTON knew or should have known that

defendant officers were unfit for duty or likely to cause harm to the PLAINTIFF based on its

background check, interview, other citizen complaints and investigations, and the officers

performance as learned through the course of work.

71. Defendant ALAMEDA and PLEASANTON knew or should have known, with

reasonable diligence on each part, that defendant officers were causing injury to PLAINTIFF and

that such injury to PLAINTIFF could or should have been avoided with due diligence.

72. Defendant ALAMEDA and PLEASANTON failed to take remedial actions to

prevent injury to PLAINTIFF.

73. Defendant ALAMEDA and PLEASANTON were the legal and proximate cause

of PLAINTIFF’S injuries.

74. PLAINTIFF suffered injuries as legally and proximately caused by Defendants’

conduct, action or inactions.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Defamation



76. PLAINTIFF complains and alleges this cause of action against Defendants TREY

SECORD, LISA SECORD, and LESLEY REGINA.

77. Defendants LISA, REGINA, TREY, MARTENS and SILCOCKS made false

statements , without privilege, about PLAINTIFF and or held PLAINTIFF out in false light.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Further, defendants named herein this cause of action publicly disclosed private facts about

PLAINTIFF.

78. The false statements made by named defendants were published to the public or

other people. Likewise, the private facts about PLAINTIFF were unlawfully made public by

defendants herein named.

79. The false statements and publicly disclosed private facts made by named

defendants caused PLAINTIFF harm and injury to his reputation. PLAINTIFF suffered injury

and damages as a result of defendants’ unlawful conduct as described in this cause of action.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Civil Rights Violation 42 U.S.C. §1983



81. PLAINTIFF complains and alleges this cause of action against Defendants TIM

MARTENS, RYAN SILCOCKS, ALAMEDA COUNTY and CITY OF PLEASANTON.

82. Defendant officers MARTENS and SILCOCKS are sworn officers. Each violated

PLAINTIFF’S civil rights while acting under color of law.

83. Each defendant herein named in this cause of action violated and deprived

PLAINTIFF’S civil rights as guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the

United States Constitution, substantive due process rights, and Civil Rights violations under 42

U.S.C. § 1983.

84. Defendant MARTENS and SILCOCKS each knowingly and unlawfully obtained

and distributed PLAINTIFF’S confidential information to private citizens, which they knew was

wrong and in violation of law.

85. Defendant Officer MARTENS knowingly made false statements in a police report

about PLAINTIFF. Further, MARTENS conducted a traffic stop and “planted evidence” on

PLAINTIFF, made such disclosures in a police report, caused the report to be used for criminal

prosecution against PLAINTIFF, and caused PLAINTIFF’S detention and arrest based upon the

false evidence. MARTENS did not have probable cause to arrest or detain PLAINTIFF.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Officers MARTENS and SILCOCKS obtained confidential information about PLAINTIFF, and

disclosed the confidential information to non-privileged people with the intent to cause harm to

PLAINTIFF and interfere with PLAINTIFF’S familial relationship. Each officer had the intent

to interfere with PLAINTIFF’S family law matters.

86. Each officer herein named as a defendant to this cause of action made the arrest

and disclosed such information with the intent to have PLAINTIFF investigated and to deprive

PLAINTIFF of custody of his children. Each officer’s conduct was done under the color of law.

87. Each officer’s conduct was done while acting under the direction of its municipal

employer. Each employing municipality had a policy, procedure or practice for permitting its

officers to obtain information about PLAINTIFF and unlawfully disclose such information to

unauthorized individuals.

88. Each officer herein named as a defendant engaged in conduct intending to cause

interference with PLAINTIFF’S family relationships. Such conduct violates PLAINTIFF’S civil

rights under the United States Constitution, Federal statutes, California Constitution, California

statutes, and common law.

89. It was the policy, procedure, custom and practice of the employing municipalities

to inadequately supervise, investigate, discipline, and train its sworn officers and law

enforcement personnel, specifically defendant officers. Such officers’ conduct was ratified by

the employing municipality. The employing municipalities’ policy, procedure, custom and

practice failed to discourage further unconstitutional conduct by its officers, including these

defendant officers. The employing municipalities received complaints about the officers’

conduct from citizens, conducted investigations into the allegations, and failed to take

appropriate disciplinary actions. Following the complaints and investigations, the officers again

continued their illegal activity against PLAINTIFF.

90. As a result of the above described policy, procedure, custom and practice of the

employing municipality, its officers, including the defendant officers’, believed their actions

would not be properly monitored, supervised, investigated or disciplined, therefore tolerated and

or ratified.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

91. Based on the actions listed herein this complaint, the defendants violated

PLAINTIFF’S civil rights, thereby causing injury and harm to PLAINTIFF.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

California Civil Code § 52.1



93. PLAINTIFF complains and alleges this cause of action against each and every

named defendant.

94. PLAINTIFF alleges that each and every defendant, in carrying out the conduct as

described in this complaint, violated California Civil Code § 52.1 by interfering with and or

attempting to interfere with PLAINTIFF’S exercise and enjoyment of his rights as secured by the

United States Constitution, California Constitution and common law and statutory rights.

95. DEFENDANTS’ violation of § 52.1 have been the proximate and legal cause of

PLAINTIFF’S injuries. PLAINTIFF suffered injury and harm as a result of Defendants’

malicious prosecution.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Abuse of Process



97. PLAINTIFF complains and alleges this cause of action against Defendants

REGINA, LISA and TREY.

98. Defendants herein named engaged in the activity and conduct alleged in the

complaint for the purpose of using the courts and other legal processes for the purpose of

depriving PLAINTIFF of his civil rights and causing other harms without probable cause.

99. Defendants did use legal means in such a wanton disregard of PLAINTIFF’S

rights and for malicious purposes.

100. PLAINTIFF had all charges and legal actions dismissed.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

101. Defendants actions caused PLAINTIFF a deprivation of rights and were the legal

and proximate cause of PLAINTIFF’S injury and harm. PLAINTIFF suffered injury and harm as

a result of Defendants’ actions.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Malicious Prosecution




MARTENS, SILCOCKS, REGINA, LISA and TREY.

104. Defendants herein named in this cause of action knowingly and with malice

caused an action to be prosecuted in the courts against PLAINTIFF as otherwise described in this

complaint.

105. PLAINTIFF was ultimately not convicted or judged guilty of the actions

Defendants forced prosecution of.

106. The criminal charges brought by the District Attorney at the request of

MARTENS were dismissed without prosecution.

107. In their conduct, Defendants were the proximate and legal cause of PLAINTIFF’S

injuries and harm. PLAINTIFF suffered injury and harm as a result of Defendants’ malicious

prosecution.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

False Arrest / False Imprisonment




MARTENS, SILCOCKS, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA and CITY OF PLEASANTON.

110. Officer TIM MARTENS waited outside of PLAINTIFFS house for a couple of

hours waiting for PLAINTIFF to leave his home. After PLAINTIFF left his house, TIM

MARTENS stopped PLAINTIFF in his vehicle. TIM MARTENS ordered PLAINTIFF from his



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

vehicle and ordered PLAINTIFF to sit on the curb. PLAINTIFF complied. TIM MARTENS

then falsely accused PLAINTIFF of possessing methamphetamine, pipes used for smoking

methamphetamine, and ammunition. The drugs, pipes, and ammunition were not PLAINTIFF’S,

nor were they on PLAINTIFF’S person or in his vehicle. TIM MARTENS lied about the

existence of drugs, pipes and ammunition.

111. TIM MARTENS then arrested PLAINTIFF based on the false evidence or

“planted drugs, pipes and ammunition.” PLAINTIFF was taken to Santa Rita and jailed. TIM

MARTENS made a police and arrest report based on the false or “planted drugs, pipes and

ammunition.” TIM MARTENS made the false police report intentionally, maliciously and with

the intent to harm PLAINTIFF. The arrest and police report did cause PLAINTIFF harm.

112. TIM MARTENS knowingly, unlawfully and intentionally create and send the

police and arrest report to LISA and TREY SECORD for use against PLAINTIFF.

113. TIM MARTENS and RYAN SILCOCKS communicated and worked in concert

with one another and with the other defendants to have PLAINTIFF falsely pulled over, arrested,

and jailed. The acts were taken in the course and scope of RYAN SILCOCKS and TIM

MARTENS’S employment with their respective agencies, ALAMEDA COUNTY and CITY OF

PLEASANTON.

114. TIM MARTENS and RYAN SILCOCKS arrested PLAINTIFF based on

deliberately false information and evidence.

115. PLAINTIFF has a constitutional right to be secure from unreasonable search,

seizure and detention under the Fourth Amendment and due process of law under the Fifth

Amendment.

116. In their conduct, Defendants herein named in this cause of action were the legal

and proximate cause of PLAINTIFF’S harm.

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Public Disclosure of Private Facts





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


MARTENS, SILCOCKS, REGINA, LISA SECORD, and TREY SECORD.

119. Defendants herein named in this cause of action did publicly disclosure to other

people and each other private facts about PLAINTIFF, including the confidential police report

and other police information and data.

120. OFFICERS MARTENS and SILCOCKS each intentionally and with intent to

cause harm to PLAINTIFF disclosed private factual information that was only available to law

enforcement personnel to private parties not otherwise privileged to receive such information.

121. The information about PLAINTIFF that was disclosed was highly sensitive,

offensive and confidential and was offensive and objectionable to PLAINTIFF and reasonable

people.

122. The confidential private information publicly disclosed about PLAINTIFF was

not of legitimate public concern. In fact, the law requires such information be kept confidential

and shielded from disclosure.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

PLAINTIFF suffered severe emotional distress, economic loss, pain, suffering, anxiety,

damage to reputation, deprivation of rights and other injuries and harm as may be determined by

the trier of fact.

WHEREFORE plaintiff prays judgment against each and every defendant and seeks

damages in the amount of $3,000,000.00 as follows:

1. Compensatory Damages;

2. Special Damages

3. General and Punitive Damages;

4. Damages for Emotional Distress;

5. Pain and Suffering Damages;

6. Economic Damages;

7. Statutory Damages, including treble damages and civil penalties;

8. Attorney Fees;



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9. Interest and Costs; and,

10. Any other damages as the Court finds appropriate and just.

DATED this 27th day of November 2012 By: _____________/s/____________________ JEFFERY M. HUBINS [State Bar 220657] [email protected]

SCHAUMAN & HUBINS 5700 Stoneridge Mall Road, Suite 130 Pleasanton, California 94588 Tel: (925) 846-5400 Fax: (925) 846-5402 Representing Plaintiff, BRIAN LANCASTER

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues and causes of action related to this complaint.

DATED this 27th day of November 2012 By: ______________/s/___________________ JEFFERY M. HUBINS [State Bar 220657] [email protected]

SCHAUMAN & HUBINS 5700 Stoneridge Mall Road, Suite 130 Pleasanton, California 94588 Tel: (925) 846-5400 Fax: (925) 846-5402 Representing Plaintiff, BRIAN LANCASTER


Documents

Document16