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

James Alan Bush 471 East Julian Street San Jose, California 95112 (408) 791-4866 Plaintiff in pro per

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA CIVIL DIVISION

James Alan Bush, Plaintiff, v. County of Santa Clara, Defendant.

Case No. 1-08-CV-117196 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES [From Claim and Delivery to Conversion] [Amount demanded does not exceed $10,000] [Limited Civil Case] [Substituting Defendants Correct for Incorrect Name] Judge Mark H. Pierce PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Plaintiff, James Alan Bush, on information, belief and established facts, by and through his own counsel of record, in pro se, and for his cause of action for conversion against Defendant, County of Santa Clara, for the value of personal property and other damages, pursuant to Civil Code 3336, states the following: Plaintiff brings this cause of action for conversion against the defendant, who lawfully held, but failed to return, personal property belonging to the plaintiff. Specifically, the Santa Clara County Department AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 1 OF 6 CASE NO. 1-08-CV-117196

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

of Correction, an agency governed by the County of Santa Clara, held in storage property belonging to the plaintiff while he was detained in its detention facilities; however, upon his release, the plaintiff was informed by the aforementioned department that his property was lost by them. Although the department agreed to reimburse to the plaintiff the value of the lost property, they failed to do so, even though the plaintiff completely and timely complied with the administrative remedy requirements of the department in all respects. PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, James Alan Bush, at all relevant times described herein, was a resident of the County of Santa Clara, residing at 1471 McDaniel Avenue, in the City of San Jose, County of Santa Clara, and State of California. 2. Defendant, County of Santa Clara, is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a political subdivision of the State of California, organized and existing under the federal and state constitutions and the laws of the State of California and the Santa Clara County charter. Defendant actively engages in the management of the affairs of various agencies and departments that provide services to the County of Santa Clara, which include the Santa Clara County Department of Correction, the agency responsible for detaining and supervising pre-sentenced and adjudicated individuals housed in its correctional facilities. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on this information and belief alleges, that at all times mentioned in this complaint the acts alleged hereinafter were committed by agents and employees of the defendant, namely, the Santa Clara County Department of Correction and AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 2 OF 6 CASE NO. 1-08-CV-117196

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 7.

CSA Vicari, and insodoing were acting within the course and scope of such agency and employment. 4. On or about December 23rd, 2006, Plaintiff was the owner with the right to possession of certain personal property consisting of a Motorola Razr V3c, which was purchased on October 26th, 2006, at a MetroPCS retail store, located at 1041 East Capitol Expressway, in San Jose. 5. On or about December 23rd, 2006, the property described in paragraph 4 of this complaint had a reasonable fair market value of $300.00. 6. On or about December 15th, 2006, the Santa Clara County Department of Correction took the aforedescribed property from the plaintiff after having detained him within its detention facilities, promising to keep it in a secure location while the plaintiff was being held, and to return it until the plaintiff was released. On or about December 23rd, 2006, however, the Santa Clara County Department of Correction failed to return said property to the plaintiff, and, instead, issued a document to the plaintiff, which indicated that the property was lost by the department, and which provided instructions for obtaining reimbursement for the value of the lost property. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES Plaintiff attempted to secure the remedy offered by the Santa Clara County Department of Correction for reimbursement of the value of the property by and through its insurance carrier as follows: 8. On or around the beginning of January 2007, and per the instructions provided by the Santa Clara County Department of Correction, Plaintiff immediately contacted CSA Vicari, an employee of said department, who instructed the plaintiff to obtain, complete and submit a lost AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 3 OF 6 CASE NO. 1-08-CV-117196

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

property claim form, along with a copy of the purchase receipt, to the department. CSA Vicari further advised the plaintiff that, per the policy of the Santa Clara County Department of Correction, he would be reimbursed within a few weeks. 9. Within three days after having contacted CSA Vicari, Plaintiff submitted the requisite insurance claim form and proof of purchase per the instructions provided to him by CSA Vicari, and then handdelivered these documents to the Santa Clara County Main Jail, located at 150 West Hedding Street, in San Jose. 10. On or around May 28th, 2007, Plaintiff contacted CSA Vicari and notified her that the Santa Clara County Department of Correction had failed to reimburse him for his lost property. At that time, CSA Vicari stated to the plaintiff that he was required to submit a copy of his cellular phone service agreement to the aforesaid department. Upon inquiry by the plaintiff, CSA Vicari admitted to him that this document was not required by the insurance carrier for reimbursement; nevertheless, plaintiff provided the requested document as instructed. 11. On or around July 25th, 2007, plaintiff again contacted CSA Vicari and notified her that he had not received any reimbursement. CSA Vicari then stated to the plaintiff that he was required to provide a photocopy of a price tag affixed to the packaging of the same brand and model of cellphone that was lost in order to verify the current value of the property; in addition, CSA Vicari stated to the plaintiff that she required him to obtain from a salesperson at a MetroPCS store a signed and written statement verifying the value of the cellphone. 12. Even after confirming with CSA Vicari that this was not a prerequisite for reimbursement by the insurance carrier, and that the documents AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 4 OF 6 CASE NO. 1-08-CV-117196

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

submitted thus far by the plaintiff were sufficient for reimbursement, Plaintiff still attempted to obtain the requested documentation; however, no MetroPCS store manager would permit the plaintiff to acquire a declaration from any employee that confirmed the price of the cellphone in question. 13. When the plaintiff subsequently informed CSA Vicari that he was unable to accommodate the demand made by her, CSA Vicari stated her refusal to process the plaintiffs request for reimbursement. 14. Consequently, Plaintiff made a demand to CSA Vicari and the Santa Clara County Department of Correction that reimbursement be made within a few weeks as originally promised, and then notified them by handdelivered letter on or around June 14th, 2007, that a failure to comply with the demand would result in the plaintiff seeking compensation for his lost property by means of civil litigation. 15. Accordingly, Plaintiff filed suit in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, on July 14th, 2008. DAMAGES 16. During, and as a proximate result of, the loss of his property by the defendant as described above, Plaintiff suffered the loss of the use and enjoyment of his personal property, which was essential to remain in contact with his family, who reside over 2,000 miles away, and was also essential to his income, in that his client contact information was also lost. RELIEF REQUESTED WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against the defendant for the following: 1. Damages for the value of the property at the time of the conversion in AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 5 OF 6 CASE NO. 1-08-CV-117196

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 // // // // //

the amount of $300.00; 2. Prejudgment interest at the legal rate on the value of the converted property pursuant to Civil Code 3336; 3. Damages for the time and money properly expended in pursuit of the converted property in the amount of $300.00; 4. Damages for all the detriment proximately caused by the loss of use of the property pursuant to Civil Code 3333 in the amount of $300.00; 5. Exemplary damages in an amount to be determined by the Court, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 3294, for the oppressive conduct of defendants employee, CSA Vicari, who maliciously subjected the plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of his right to possession of his personal property by placing unnecessary and unreasonable demands upon the plaintiff as a condition for the reimbursement of the value of the personal property the defendant admits to losing, and by her failure to contact the plaintiff at any time to advise him of these frivolous demands, while giving the plaintiff the false expectation that he would be reimbursed without ever having done so for nearly eight months; and, 6. Any other and further relief that the Court deems proper. Dated: November 29th, 2011 By: X James Alan Bush Plaintiff in pro per

AMENDED COMPLAINT

PAGE 6 OF 6

CASE NO. 1-08-CV-117196