Attorneys for Plaintiffs

_____________________________________________________________________________

IN THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH

JOSEPH PETITO, and NICHOLE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

SCHMIDT, individually and for and on
behalf of GABRIELLE PETITO, deceased, (Tier 3)
(Jury Trial Demanded)
Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 220700046

MOAB CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Judge Don M Torgerson

BRET EDGE, BRAYDON PALMER, ERIC
PRATT, DANIEL ROBBINS, and
JANE/JOHN DOES 1-10.

Defendants.

Plaintiffs, Joseph Petito, and Nichole Schmidt, by and through their counsel of record,

Brian C. Stewart, Steven Jensen, James W. McConkie, Bradley H. Parker, and W. Alexander

Evans of the law firm of Parker & McConkie, and Troy L. Booher, J. Frederic Voros, Jr., and
Dick J. Baldwin of the law firm of Zimmerman Booher, hereby bring this action on their own

behalf and on behalf of Plaintiff Gabrielle (“Gabby”) Venora Petito, deceased, against

Defendants Moab Police Department, Chief Bret Edge, Assistant Chief Braydon Palmer, Officer

Eric Pratt, Officer Daniel Robbins, and Jane/John Does 1-10, alleging the Department’s

negligent hiring and failure to properly train and the Individual Officers’ negligence caused

Gabby’s tragic and untimely death. Plaintiffs allege as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. The plaintiffs are the parents of Gabby Petito. Gabby was an aspiring “van-life”

travel influencer, who was brutally murdered by her abusive fiancé and travel companion, Brian

Laundrie.

2. Roughly two weeks before Brian murdered Gabby, while the couple was visiting

Moab, Utah, a witness saw Brian hit Gabby. The witness immediately called 911 to report the

incident.

3. Gabby contacted her family to tell them that the couple had been fighting, that

Brian had hit her, and that the police had been called. The family immediately responded by

beginning to arrange for Gabby to fly home and to have her van shipped home, to separate her

from Brian.

4. Moab police found the couple and investigated the reported domestic violence

incident. Once the Moab Police Department stepped in, Gabby’s family stepped back, believing

that the situation was being appropriately handled and evaluated by competent authorities.

5. The police investigation was deeply flawed. Despite the witness’s report, the

officers treated Brian as if he were the victim of domestic abuse rather than the perpetrator. In

2
fact, the officers never directly questioned Brian about whether he hit Gabby or how she ended

up with scratches on her face. They failed to recognize or otherwise identify the obvious signs

clearly indicating that Gabby was the victim of domestic abuse, including her assuming

responsibility for the fight with Brian even though she described Brian grabbing her face so

violently that it scratched her cheeks and drew blood. The officers egregiously misinterpreted

Gabby’s extreme emotional distress, seeing it as the cause of the domestic violence rather than

its result. Officer Pratt, in particular, was fundamentally biased in his approach to the

investigation, choosing to believe Gabby’s abuser, ignoring evidence that Gabby was the victim

and intentionally looking for loopholes to get around the requirements of Utah law and his duty

to protect Gabby. And Officer Pratt has since explained that, at the time of the traffic stop, he

believed that Brian was emotionally and mentally abusing Gabby, that Gabby did not in fact

assault Brian, and that Brian had used physical force on Gabby by grabbing her face which left a

cut on her face.

6. The Utah legislature has removed discretion from officers investigating domestic

violence incidents. The law imposes protections against future harm, including an automatic

protective order to ensure that the abuser and the victim remain separated. But here, the

officers—based on their tragic failure to identify Brian as the abuser, or worse, based on their

refusal to treat Brian as the abuser despite Officer Pratt’s assessment that Brian was mentally and

emotionally abusive and had used physical force against Gabby—coached Gabby to provide

answers that the officers used to justify their decision not to enforce Utah law.

7. This case is a vehicle for systemic change and a reckoning about how the police

enforce the State’s domestic abuse laws. First, police cannot continue to assert immunity under

3
Utah law to avoid accountability for their actions that result in a wrongful death. Second, the

police must be trained on—and implement—effective methods for evaluating domestic abuse

situations, so that the police can adequately protect victims according to the clear priorities

mandated by the Utah legislature. Third, police departments must stop hiring and/or retaining

officers who engaged in prior professional misconduct or who have personal biases making them

unfit and unsafe to serve as members of the police force.

8. Gabby’s death constituted a wrongful death resulting from Defendants’

negligence. Notwithstanding case law from the Utah Supreme Court holding that the State is

immune in cases of wrongful death, Tiede v. State, 915 P.2d 500 (Utah 1996), plaintiffs are

prepared to demonstrate that the case in question must be overturned because it relied on an

incorrect assessment of the history of Utah’s wrongful death actions. The Utah Constitution

prohibits the legislature from abrogating the right of action for wrongful death. And at the time

the Utah Constitution was drafted, that right of action included the right to assert against the

State a claim for wrongful death arising from negligence. Indeed, the Utah Constitution

enshrined the common understanding that no one—including a state official, such as a police

officer—enjoys immunity for negligently causing the death of another, under Utah law.

9. Gabby did not have to die. Gabby would still be alive if Moab Police Department

had not hired, retained and/or failed to train officers who were fundamentally unfit and safe to

employ in the capacity of police officer. Gabby would still be alive if the police officers had

competently and properly investigated Brian’s reported abuse and enforced Utah’s laws that

were designed to remove the officers’ discretion to disregard abuse. Gabby would still be alive if

Officer Pratt had not intentionally coached Gabby and manipulated the investigation to try to

4
find loopholes that would allow him to disregard the mandates of Utah law and his duty to

protect Gabby. Defendants’ negligence and Officer Pratt’s willful misconduct deprived Gabby

of her safety and ultimately her life. Gabby’s parents have been deprived of Gabby’s

companionship, love and affection, and the fulfillment of the hopes that all parents cherish for

their children’s futures.

PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

10. Plaintiff Gabby Petito, now deceased, was at all relevant times a resident of North

Port, Sarasota County, State of Florida.

11. Plaintiff Joseph Petito is and was at all relevant times a resident of Vero Beach,

Indian River County, State of Florida and was the natural parent and heir of Plaintiff Gabby

Petito.

12. Plaintiff Nichole Schmidt is and was at all relevant times a resident of Blue Point,

Suffolk County, New York State and was the natural parent and heir of Plaintiff Gabby Petito.

13. Defendant Moab City Police Department is located in Moab, Grand County, State

of Utah and was at all relevant times a government entity as defined by Utah Code § 63G-7-

102(4).

14. Defendant Bret Edge was at all relevant times the Chief of Police for the Moab

City Police Department and, upon information and belief, currently resides in or around Moab,

Grand County, State of Utah.

15. Defendant Braydon Palmer was at all relevant times the Assistant Chief of Police

for the Moab City Police Department and, upon information and belief, currently resides in or

around St. George, Washington County, State of Utah.

5
 16. Defendant Eric Pratt was at all relevant times an officer with the Moab City

Police Department and, upon information and belief, resides in Moab, Grand County, State of

Utah. On information and belief, Pratt is currently a Detective with the Moab City Police

Department.

17. Defendant Daniel Robbins is and was at all relevant times an officer with the

Moab City Police Department and, upon information and belief, resides in Moab, Grand County,

State of Utah.

18. Upon information and belief, Defendants Jane/John Does are and were at all

relevant times employees and/or agents of the Moab City Police Department and reside in Moab,

Grand County, State of Utah.

19. Defendants’ wrongful acts and omissions giving rise to this Complaint occurred

in or around Moab, Grand County, State of Utah.

20. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Utah Code § 78A-5-

102(1).

21. Venue is appropriate in this Court pursuant to Utah Code § 78B-3-307.

22. Plaintiffs have complied with the requirements of Utah Code § 63G-7-402 et seq.

23. Plaintiffs have filed an undertaking in the amount of $300 as required by Utah

Code § 63G-7-601.

24. Plaintiffs will post a bond in an amount determined by the Court as required by

Utah Code § 78B-3-104.

6
 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

25. Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference all previous paragraphs above as though

fully set forth below.

26. In 2021, Gabby Petito was a 22-year-old traveling the country with her fiancé,

Brian Laundrie.

27. Gabby had converted a van into a camper to use in her travels as an aspiring

“vanlife” travel influencer.

28. In the summer of 2021, Gabby and Brian traveled from New York to the western

United States, visiting multiple national parks, which Gabby documented on social media,

including Instagram and YouTube.

29. On or around August 12, 2021, Brian and Gabby were visiting Moab, Utah.

30. Brian and Gabby spent much of the day in a coffee shop where Gabby worked on

her social media business.

31. Brian and Gabby had been fighting much of the day, which eventually led to

Brian physically and publicly assaulting Gabby outside the Moonflower Community

Cooperative.

32. At some point prior to their interaction with Moab police officers, Brian grabbed

Gabby by the face so forcefully that he cut her cheek and drew blood. Gabby took a photograph

of her injury, which shows blood across her nose and left eye. Gabby pointed out the injury to

Officer Pratt, but he ignored her and did nothing more to investigate or document the injury.

33. A witness observed Brian hitting Gabby and called 911 to report the incident.

7
 34. The witness reported seeing a “domestic dispute,” explaining that as the witness

was driving past, he saw the “gentleman slapping the girl.” He said, “they ran up and down the

sidewalk, he proceeded to hit her, hopped in the car, and they drove off.”

35. Another witness later reported seeing Brian hit Gabby with a closed fist, causing

her to fall against the side of the van with her back and probably her head.

36. Dispatch alerted officers about a man who reportedly hit a woman then drove

northbound on Main Street, away from the Co-op.

37. Officer Eric Pratt went to the Co-op to investigate and got the phone number of a

second witness. While at the Co-op, Officer Pratt failed to activate his body camera as required

and failed to locate and talk to the 911 caller who has reported Brian hitting Gabby.

38. Using the information provided by dispatch, Officer Daniel Robbins located

Gabby and Brian’s van speeding northward, leaving Moab, and turned his lights on to pull them

over.

39. Officer Robbins watched the van cross the double yellow line in the center of the

road and swerve back to the right, hitting the curb on the side of the road. He turned on his siren

and pulled over the van.

40. Inside the van, Officer Robbins found Gabby, visibly distraught, sitting in the

passenger seat alongside Brian in the driver’s seat. Brian was calm and showed no signs of

distress.

41. When Officer Robbins asked what was going on and why Gabby was crying,

Gabby said they had been fighting over personal issues. Brian explained that it had been a long

8
day because there were a lot of flies where they had been camping the prior day, then changed

the subject to apologize for driving into the curb.

42. Officer Robbins asked Gabby to step out of the van, separating Gabby and Brian.

43. Officer Robbins spoke with Gabby, who continued crying while explaining that

she and Brian had been fighting and that it had been a rough morning for a few reasons.

44. First, she told Officer Robbins that she and Brian were fighting because she was

cleaning the van and had apologized to Brian about giving the impression she was in a bad

mood.

45. Second, she said they were fighting because she was working hard to start a travel

blog, which had kept her busy all morning working on her computer, and that Brian did not

believe she was capable of succeeding.

46. Third, she explained they were fighting because Brian was preventing her from

getting into their van because he believed she needed to calm down.

47. While Officer Robbins spoke with Gabby, Ryan Kral—a park ranger—and

Officer Pratt arrived and began speaking with Brian. Eventually Officer Robbins finished

speaking with Gabby and had her sit in his police car while he joined Officer Pratt and Ranger

Kral to speak with Brian.

48. Brian calmly told the officers that although he and Gabby had been fighting, they

had a nice morning, but that Gabby had gotten worked up while they were trying to get their van

packed up to get their day going.

49. Officer Robbins noticed scratches on Brian’s face and asked him about them.

Brian explained that he had taken Gabby’s phone, locked the van, and told Gabby to “take a

9
breather” and calm down, at which point she tried to take her phone and the van keys from Brian.

Brian admitted that he responded by pushing Gabby, and while that was happening, Gabby

scratched Brian’s face.

50. Officer Pratt then spoke with Gabby. She elaborated on what she had told Officer

Robbins, explaining that she was cleaning the van and, because she knows she can appear to

have a mean attitude about how things are organized and cleaned, she apologized to Brian if she

seemed like she was acting mean.

51. She said, “I was apologizing, but I guess I said it in a mean tone, because [Brian]

got really frustrated and locked me out of the car and told me to go take a breather.”

52. But she didn’t want to take a breather—they were out of water, she was thirsty,

and she wanted to get going with their day. She also did not want to be locked out of her car,

thousands of miles from home, without her cell phone. She was also in the middle of a project on

her laptop, which was locked inside the car.

53. Officer Pratt responded by observing that Brian’s reaction did not calm the

situation, but made Gabby more upset.

54. He then asked Gabby about scratches on her face and on her arm, pointing out

multiple scratches, and asked what had happened.

55. Gabby initially hesitated and claimed she wasn’t sure. She said she was trying to

get into the back of the van, and there was a backpack on the back of the van that scratched her.

56. Officer Pratt then told Gabby that a couple of witnesses had reported seeing Brian

punch Gabby.

10
 57. Gabby responded by saying that she had slapped Brian first, because “he kept

telling me to shut up,” and that Brian then grabbed her arms so she wouldn’t be able to slap him

again.

58. Officer Pratt asked again if Brian had hit Gabby, and she responded, “I guess, but

I hit him first.” She showed the officer how Brian had grabbed her face, explaining that he must

have cut her cheek with his nails, because she could feel the cut burning when she touched her

face.

59. Officer Pratt failed to ask any questions about or document the cut on Gabby’s

face or further investigate Brian violently grabbing Gabby’s head and face.

60. Officer Pratt did not ask about whether Brian had ever locked Gabby out of their

van before, or taken away her cell phone and laptop, or otherwise acted in a way to exercise

control over Gabby.

61. Officer Pratt also did not ask about whether Brian had ever been violent with

Gabby before.

62. Officer Pratt did not consider the asymmetrical seriousness of the force Gabby

used on Brian as compared with the force Brian used on Gabby, nor did he otherwise conduct

any kind of lethality assessment to evaluate whether Brian violently grabbing Gabby’s face was

an indicator of potential escalating violence in the future.

63. Rather than probing Brian and Gabby’s vague story about how their fight led to

physical violence, including asking for additional details about the facts Gabby had already

explained, Officer Pratt appeared to simply accept Gabby’s claim that she hit Brian first, as if the

violence reported by witnesses was an isolated incident, without any provocation.

11
 64. Instead, Officer Pratt steered the conversation by patronizingly questioning Gabby

about whether she was okay, asking if she took medication for anxiety, and asking leading

questions about Brian being “pretty patient” with Gabby. Gabby responded by saying that Brian

gets really frustrated with her, and also has a lot of anxiety.

65. Officer Pratt then shared some observations from his personal life. Specifically,

he talked about how he and his ex-wife also had anxiety, and that they would feed off each other

and spiral. In other words, rather than investigating the factors that led to violence between

Brian and Gabby, to determine whether Gabby was a victim of domestic abuse—including Brian

reportedly responding to Gabby’s apology by taking her phone, locking her out of their car and

away from her laptop, and telling her to take a walk, as well as Brian grabbing Gabby’s face with

so much force that he sliced her cheek open with his fingernails—Officer Pratt compared the

situation to his prior relationship and attributed the confrontation to a bad combination of two

people with anxiety.

66. Officer Pratt then left Gabby and went to speak with Brian. Officer Pratt began

joking with Brian about both of them being bald, and asking if Brian would like to move into the

shade to talk because Officer Pratt “felt bad for him.”

67. Officer Pratt told Brian that when they arrived on scene, they were “worried about

what kind of a guy [Brian was], from what [they had] heard, but in talking to [Gabby] it sounds

to me like maybe this is not so clear cut.”

68. In other words, without investigating the underlying conduct that led to Brian and

Gabby’s fight, Officer Pratt had decided that Brian’s violence was excusable because of Gabby’s

anxiety.

12
 69. Brian then gave his version of events to Officer Robbins. He explained that a lot

of little things had contributed to the tension between Brian and Gabby that led to violence. For

example, he talked about how Gabby had grown irritated about the flies at their prior campsite,

Brian’s dirty feet, and Brian’s decision to move some items around in the van.

70. He confirmed Gabby’s story that their fight escalated once Brian told Gabby to

take a breather and he locked the van, but claimed he only shoved Gabby as a defensive measure.

He did not discuss grabbing or scratching Gabby’s face, which is an offensive act, and the

officers did not ask him about it.

71. Brian claimed that he felt the need to lock her van and keep the keys because his

big fear was being left on his own because “I don’t really have a phone, so if she goes off

without me, I’m on my own.”

72. When asked about his demeanor, Brian explained that seeing the police lights turn

on made his heart rate go up. He and Officer Robbins then joked about how Officer Robbins also

feels the same way when he sees police lights turn on.

73. Officer Robbins then asked Brian if Gabby takes any medication, to which Brian

said, “she’s crazy,” then laughed and said, “no, I don’t think so, none that I know of.”

74. While Officer Robbins and Ranger Kral spoke with Brian, Officer Pratt began

speaking with another park ranger who arrived on scene, Melissa Hulls.

75. Ranger Hulls asked Officer Pratt if he was worried about Gabby’s story.

Tellingly, despite the information he had received about Brian’s controlling behavior of locking

Gabby out of the van without her phone or laptop, and her explaining that both she and Brian had

13
serious anxiety, Officer Pratt responded, “[she] has a lot of anxiety and from what she’s

claiming, she’s the full-on aggressor here.”

76. Officer Pratt then went to his car and called the second witness to get his version

of the events.

77. The witness explained that although he had maybe seen Brian push or shove

Gabby, he did not observe a “full on punch to the face or anything.” He explained that it

appeared as if Brian was trying to close up the van and left a backpack on the back of the van.

Brian then climbed into the van, blocking Gabby from getting in. She began hitting Brian with an

open hand while telling Brian to let her get into the van before she eventually was able to climb

over Brian and into the van.

78. The witness then prepared a written statement: “I observed a man and woman

appear to have some sort of dispute. They were talking aggressively at each other, and something

seemed off. At one point they were sort of fighting over a phone—I think the male took the

female’s phone. It appeared that he didn’t want her in the white van. He got into the driver’s seat

and she followed him. At one point she was punching him in the arm and/or face and trying to

get into the van. She actually climbed in/over him and over to the passenger’s seat. I heard her

say, ‘Why do you have to be so mean?’ . . . . [F]rom my point of view, something definitely

didn’t seem right. It was as if the guy was trying to leave her, and maybe take her phone?”

79. Officer Pratt and Officer Robbins then spoke. Officer Pratt summarized the

information he had learned, admitting that he had not really questioned Brian yet, but

nonetheless incorrectly concluded that Gabby was the “primary” aggressor. And yet, Officer

Pratt has since said that, at the time, he believed the opposite was true: “I took my 16 years of

14
experience and said I believed Gabby based on the totality of circumstances and based on what

she appears physically capable of and based off what I saw him doing and acting the way he was

acting. I don’t think she assaulted him.”

80. Utah law requires officers to determine the “predominant” aggressor.

81. Utah law also provides that the relevant inquiry focuses on (1) the existence of

prior domestic violence complaints, (2) the relative seriousness of injuries, (3) the likelihood of

future injury to each party, and (4) whether a party acted in self-defense. Utah Code § 77-36-

2.2(3).

82. Under those factors, Brian was the predominant aggressor. He repeatedly

explained that his injuries were “baby injuries” and not a big deal, the most serious of which

were the result of Gabby and Brian struggling over her phone, not the result of intentional harm

by Gabby. Gabby’s injuries, on the other hand, were the result of Brian grabbing Gabby’s face

with great force and cutting her cheek. A threat assessment would have revealed that Brian’s

violently grabbing Gabby’s face is a well-recognized red flag for potential serious violence.

Finally, although Brian claimed to act in self-defense, a proper evaluation of Brian’s actions that

led to violence would have accounted for Brian’s use of non-defensive force when cutting

Gabby’s face and it would have led to a determination that Gabby was also acting in self-defense

once Brian took the controlling actions of taking Gabby’s phone, locking her out of her van and

away from her laptop, and telling her to walk away.

83. Officer Pratt explained what, in his view, was the “problem” with Gabby being

the primary aggressor: “In instances of domestic assault, be it a male or be it a female, we shall

arrest. Now that doesn’t mean that they necessarily have to go to jail. We can do a citation, if it

15
meets one of three criterion, which one of them is that we can ensure that they’re not going to

further risk each other’s safety. But the problem with that is that they live in the same vehicle.”

Officer Pratt reiterated that, in his view, Brian was the victim.

84. But he concluded, “Fortunately for her, just because he’s bigger and stronger . . .

we can’t treat this differently than if it was a male on female violence, and we’re gone have to

charge her. And we can do a citation if there’s some arrangement that can be made to separate

them, and then we have to let them know that there’s a no-contact order in effect, and we have to

let him know that the only way to drop it is to go into the police department during business

hours and fill out a waiver.”

85. Of course, that did not happen.

86. Officer Pratt informed Brian that the state legislature had taken away the officers’

discretion about what to do when confronted with domestic violence. He told Brian that he had

determined Gabby was the primary aggressor and Brian was “the victim of a domestic assault,”

at which Brian laughed.

87. Officer Pratt clearly understood that the law required the officers to arrest or issue

a citation in this situation, and that Utah law imposes an automatic no-contact order that places a

legal barrier to abusive couples being in contact with each another: “One of the things that the

state legislature doesn’t give us discretion on is charges when it comes to a domestic assault. . . .

So at this point, you’re the victim of a domestic assault and even if you didn’t want to pursue

this, we don’t have a choice.” He also explained, “Automatically, right now, there’s something

called a no-contact order in place. From this point forward, until tomorrow, if you wish to drop

16
it, you have to go in to [the Moab Police Station and] . . . fill out a waiver that you’re requesting

a waiving of the no-contact order.”

88. Officer Pratt asked Brian if he had any ideas for how they could avoid having

Gabby spend the night in jail but be separated from Brian so that the officers can simply issue a

citation. Brian asked the officers if he could spend the night in jail instead. Officer Pratt said he

couldn’t, because Brian wasn’t being charged with anything. Officer Robbins told Brian, “You

haven’t done anything wrong.” Brian responded by joking with Officer Robbins about taking

Officer Robbins’ radio to jail with him, and both officers laughed.

89. Eventually, the officers arranged through a local domestic violence organization

for Brian to have a place to stay the night, allowing Gabby and Brian to be separated for the

night.

90. Officer Pratt then spoke to Gabby to explain that she was responsible for what had

happened. He said, “You’re dealing with some struggles emotionally and mentally at your age

. . . and hopefully it works itself out. But the stuff you did today that contributed to this—because

you both contributed to this—is as a result of your inability to cope with the anxiety and stress

you’re having. So in a way, you’re kind of a victim of this. I think you would have done better if

you had the skills to do better. But you don’t learn skills until you learn skills.”

91. He then told Gabby, “[B]used on what you’ve said, and based on what our

witnesses have said, and even based on what your fiancé has mentioned—trying his very hardest

not to have you in any trouble, he does have marks on him that witnesses say were caused by you

slapping him, and that even you say you were slapping him and aggressing him first. And I don’t

have anyone saying that he punched you aggressively, it sounds like it was shoving in a manner

17
that was more consistent with trying to prevent you from entering the van or to get space from

you, not to assail you.”

92. Officer Pratt’s explanation to Gabby did not account for the scratches on Gabby’s

face or the fact that Brian was acting aggressively toward Gabby simply by locking her out of

her van and taking her phone.

93. Officer Pratt continued, “If the tables were turned and he was beating on you and

you were shoving him, of course we’re going to look at it like, ‘oh, of course she’s defending

herself to get away from this guy.’ But we’re kind of looking at it the same way with him. And

we have to treat both fair, even if he’s a bigger male and you’re a smaller female. The law

doesn’t say, hey, Officer Pratt and Officer Robbins, you can treat people different based on

gender. We can’t. Even if it makes no sense because you probably could not physically destroy

this man the way that he could if he attacked you. We can’t treat you different.”

94. Despite acknowledging that the situation “makes no sense,” given the physical

mismatch between Brian and Gabby, the officers disregarded and failed to investigate Brian’s

controlling and abusive actions that led to the confrontation, instead focusing solely on Gabby’s

admission that she hit Brian before he hit her. But according to both Brian and Gabby’s accounts,

that was not the beginning of the aggression that led to the physical fight.

95. Officer Pratt then repeated the speech he’d given to Brian about how the officers

had no discretion when addressing domestic violence situations, explaining, “In the legislature,

in Utah, they’ve made a law that when we have a domestic assault, they don’t trust the police to

make good decisions because too many cops have made bad decisions. So they say, ‘we’re not

going to give you discretion, we’re going to write a law that says if you have a domestic assault

18
whether it’s male on female or female on male, whoever the primary aggressor is, has to be

charged. No choice. You don’t get to give them a warning.’ It doesn’t even matter if they’re

barely hurt at all and the guy doesn’t want to press charges, or the girl doesn’t want to press

charges. We don’t have a choice. We literally have no choice.”

96. Gabby began to sob, begging for the officers to issue a citation for hitting the curb

instead, saying “I don’t want to be separated,” and explaining that being separated from Brian

would cause serious anxiety because she and Brian were “a team.”

97. Officer Pratt told Gabby he would call his supervisor to see if there was a way

around applying the Utah legislature’s mandate regarding domestic violence.

98. Gabby then called her parents.

99. On that call, Gabby’s parents demanded that Gabby fly home to get away from

Brian, offering to pay for her ride to Salt Lake City and her flight home. But upon learning that

the police were involved, Gabby’s parents accepted Gabby’s assurances that she should continue

her trip. Gabby’s parents relied to their detriment on the police officers involved to evaluate the

situation and intervene as necessary to protect Gabby. But for the officers’ failure to investigate

and follow Utah law, Gabby’s parents would have intervened to end the trip and bring Gabby

home.

100. Officer Pratt called the Assistant Chief of Police, Braydon Palmer, and explained

the incident. His description minimized Brian’s controlling behavior of locking Gabby out of her

van and away from her laptop and entirely omits crucial details about Brian’s confiscating

Gabby’s cell phone and grabbing her face so forcefully that he cut her cheek. He also

emphasized Gabby’s anxiety without acknowledging Brian’s reported anxiety, thereby

19
presenting the situation as a one-sided assault instigated by Gabby as a result of her emotional or

mental health breakdown. Officer Pratt then asked Assistant Chief Palmer if there was any way

around the domestic assault statute. Assistant Chief Palmer said that the only way not to comply

with the statute was if the statute did not apply.

101. Officer Pratt reread the statute searching for a loophole that would allow him to

ignore his non=discretionary responsibilities under Utah law.

102. After briefly reading the statute, Officer Pratt spoke to Officer Robbins, providing

a chilling description of the exact situation Gabby was experiencing but that the officers’ sloppy

investigation had failed to identify: “You know why the domestic assault code is there. It’s there

to protect people. The reason they don’t give us discretion on these things is because too many

times women who are at risk want to go back to their abuser, they just wanted him to stop, and

they don’t want to be separated, they don’t want him charged, they don’t want him to go to jail.

And then they end up getting worse and worse treatment, and then they end up getting killed.”

Officer Pratt articulated his clear understanding of the foreseeability of a victim being killed if

police did not follow the statute. He then proceeded to intentionally manipulate the investigation

to find a loophole to avoid following the law and, as a result, Gabby was killed.

103. Officer Pratt reviewed Utah Code § 75-5-102, describing assault under Utah law.

In his words, the statute provides, “An assault is an attempt with unlawful force or violence to do

bodily injury to another.”

104. That incomplete reading of the statute led Officer Pratt to conclude incorrectly

that the question was whether Gabby had the necessary intent to cause Brian bodily injury. But

the statute goes on to define assault alternatively to include circumstances where an individual

20
“commits an act, with unlawful force or violence, that causes bodily injury.” In other words,

under Utah law, intent to cause bodily harm is not required to satisfy the definition of assault.

105. Officer Pratt explained to Officer Robbins that the question was whether it was

“her intention to do him bodily injury. . . . We don’t care what the result was, we care about the

intent.” He then instructed Officer Robbins that, “If you go ask her, ‘what was your intention

when you were slapping him’ and she says, ‘I wanted him to hurt or be ill or impair his physical

condition,’ then there’s nothing we can do. One way to word it might be, ‘hey, when you slapped

him, were you intending to cause him physical pain . . . or impairment of his physical condition?

Was that your intention? Is that what you were attempting to do?’ . . . Whatever she answers to

that question will seal her fate.”

106. Officer Pratt and Robbins then spoke with Gabby. Officer Pratt coached her to

give the answer he believed he needed to exercise discretion and decline to enforce Utah law

relating to domestic violence.

107. Officer Pratt said, “Gabby, this is a very, very important question. How you

answer this question is going to determine what happens next. But the only person who can

answer this question is you. Think very hard before you answer the question. Do not quickly

answer it. Think very hard. When you slapped him those times, were you attempting to cause

him physical pain or physical impairment? Was that what you were attempting to do to him?”

108. Gabby responded, “no,” exactly as Officer Pratt hoped she would. She explained

that she was trying to get Brian to stop telling her to calm down.

21
 109. Officer Pratt turned to Officer Robbins, while still in front of Gabby, and said, “It

doesn’t sound to me like she attempted to injure him. It’s your call. This is 100% your call. I

support you either way.”

110. The officers then moved away from Gabby, where Officer Robbins explained his

concerns to Officer Pratt.

111. Officer Robbins said, “I can’t say I entirely believe her.”

112. Officer Pratt responded, “I’m recording, and society, the judges, and everyone can

judge me for this. I’m looking at a 110-pound female and her fiancé who have no means to be

separated. He doesn’t want to pursue it. She’s not a threat to him, more than slight abrasions

from her fingernails. I don’t care if we use the actual letter of the law to not charge. But I also

don’t care, because it literally does possibly make sense to go full-on domestic assault and do the

whole thing. This is your opportunity to make the decision.” Despite Officer Pratt’s prior

articulation of the law and the foreseeability of a victim being killed as a result of an officer’s

failure to follow the law, he continued to push to find a loophole, stating that he didn’t care if

they followed the law.

113. Indeed, Officer Pratt acted willfully to disregard—and act directly contrary to—

critical information that he learned during his encounter with Brian and Gabby, including Brian’s

abuse of Gabby, in order to circumvent non-discretionary Utah law that required him to issue a

citation or make an arrest and impose an automatic no-contact order.

114. Specifically, he has admitted that he saw through Brian’s façade at the time of the

encounter. He has explained that during the traffic stop, he had determined that Brian “clearly

has influence over her mentality that looked unsavory to me. . . . He’s mentally messing with her,

22
hanging her backpack outside, saying ‘you need to go take a walk,’ and saying weird things to

us, like, ‘what if I touch your radio.’ He was just a weird, not healthy dude, and that was clear.”

Similarly he claimed that the officers “saw his stupid bullshit.”

115. Officer Pratt has also admitted, “I thought he was an emotional threat to her. I

thought he was a mental threat to her.” Similarly, he says he concluded during the traffic stop

that Brian “seemed like a mental and emotional bully.”

116. Officer Pratt has also observed that the statements by Brian, Gabby, and an

eyewitness were “strangely consistent” in their description of Brian using physical force to grab

Gabby by the face.

117. Officer Pratt has also colorfully admitted, “I know these kind of guys. Brian

didn’t get away with anything for being cute. Brian showed more red flags than a Chinese

communist rally.”

118. But in Officer Pratt’s words, he couldn’t do anything because there’s no law

against “being a shitty boyfriend and gaslighting and taking advantage of people mentally and

emotionally for your own reasons.”

119. Of course, there are laws against that type of behavior when coupled with using

physical force and causing harm, such as the force Brian admitted to using against Gabby.

Indeed, the Utah legislature has removed police officers’ discretion when confronted with those

facts, requiring them to issue a citation or make an arrest and issue a no-contact order.

120. Despite all of the information available to Officer Pratt about Brian’s use of

physical force against Gabby, Officer Pratt’s assessment that Gabby posed no physical threat to

Brian, and Officer Pratt’s assessment that Brian was emotionally and mentally abusing Gabby,

23
Officer Pratt continued to act as though Gabby were properly understood to be the predominant

aggressor.

121. Based on his willful disregard of the facts he admits to knowing at the time,

Officer Pratt chose not to investigate further or cite or charge Brian for using physical force

against Gabby while emotionally and mentally abusing her.

122. Again, despite knowing that Brian had used physical violence against Gabby in a

way that was not defensive, when he grabbed her face so forcefully that he cut her cheek, and

that he had escalated tensions that led to the 911 call by taking Gabby’s phone and locking her

out of the van and away from her laptop, Officer Pratt’s observation that Gabby posed no

physical threat to Brian, that Brian was emotionally and mentally abusing Gabby, and that Brian

had used physical force against Gabby should have, at the very least, caused him and Officer

Robbins to reconsider their simplistic determination that Gabby was the primary aggressor.

123. Instead, Officer Robbins responded to Officer Pratt by saying, “Let’s do this:

taking your advice, let me do a crime report on this. Won’t charge her right now. Won’t cite her

for it right now. I’ll . . . send it off to the city attorney, let them screen it and make a decision.”

124. Despite Officer Pratt’s prior assurance that he would support Officer Robbins’

decision, Officer Pratt pressured Officer Robbins to reconsider, saying, “If you send it to the city

attorney and they strongly disagree with your decision, and they throw a complete fit, you might

hear about it in a very negative way, so I would make the decision yourself.” Officer Pratt

continued to manipulate the investigation and Officer Robbins toward a particular outcome,

while attempting to avoid responsibility for actually making the decision.

24
 125. Ranger Hulls observed, “I’d rather be dinged for a decision I made than a decision

I didn’t make.” Officer Pratt added, “Especially if they think you were completely negligent in

your decision. Why give it to them?” But Officer Pratt reiterated that he supported Officer

Robbins in whatever decision he would make, including if he decided to send Gabby to jail.

126. Despite telling Officer Robbins that he would support Officer Robbins’ decision,

even if Officer Robbins decided to send Gabby to jail, Officer Pratt has said, “If she should have

gone to jail, if that’s what should have happened, then kick me out of the police department.

Cool. I’ll go back to being a drywaller where the worst thing I can do is mess up a joint or

something on a wall.” At the same time, Officer Pratt has also said, “The only person that could

have gone to jail was Gabby. I don’t think it was right. I will die on this hill. If it was wrong for

me to not arrest her, I still wouldn’t have arrested her.” In other words, despite his assurances to

Officer Robbins, Officer Pratt would not have supported a decision by Officer Robbins to arrest

Gabby. Shockingly, he has said that he still would not have supported that decision even if he

knew it was the right one.

127. At that point, Officer Pratt received a call about another incident requiring police

attention. Officer Pratt asked Officer Robbins, “You got this?”

128. Officer Robbins responded, “I’m making this decision. I’m going to cite them.

I’m going to go follow through the procedure—.”

129. Officer Pratt interrupted, “OK, would you feel more comfortable handling [the

other call]?”

130. Officer Robbins grimaced and said yes, because it seemed like a headache no

matter what he decided about how to address Brian and Gabby’s circumstances.

25
 131. Officer Pratt continued to manipulate the situation, pushing for a different

outcome, searching for a loophole allowing the officers to abdicate the role that the Utah

legislature assigned them when they encounter domestic violence. He said, “Look, another

option is to not charge them but separate them for the night. If they find themselves together

again, what is it to you? You separated them, you provided for their safety. If he doesn’t have

enough sense to stay away and you got them separated, it’s on him.”

132. Officer Robbins acquiesced, nodding along while Officer Pratt explained his

intentional plan to avoid the statute’s requirement and their duty to protect Gabby.

133. After manipulating the investigation and pushing Officer Robbins toward his

desired outcome, Officer Pratt then left to handle some other call, attempting to avoid

responsibility for the ultimate decision.

134. Officer Robbins spoke to Brian to gather information, including his driver’s

license and phone number.

135. When Officer Robbins asked for Brian’s phone number, Brian reached into his

pocket and pulled out a phone, despite previously telling Officer Robbins that he didn’t have a

phone.

136. Even though Brian pulled his phone out of his pocket in front of Officer Robbins,

Officer Robbins did not follow up on Brian’s claim that he didn’t have a phone.

137. Nor did Officer Robbins probe Brian’s claim that he had taken Gabby’s phone—

which had contributed to tensions escalating into physical violence—based on the self-evidently

false reason that Brian feared being left without a phone.

26
 138. Officer Robbins told Gabby, “This is what I’m going to do. I’ve decided I am not

going to cite you for domestic violence battery, okay? It was only going to be a Class B

misdemeanor, however the domestic violence portion of it enhances it and makes life a major

pain in the butt, . . . so I’m choosing not to cite you today, so you’re not going to be charged with

anything, alright? But this is what I have to do. I’m separating the two of you tonight, okay? I

want you guys both to be tonight away from each other, relax, breathe.”

139. When Officer Robbins asked Gabby if there was anything she’d like him to tell

Brian, she asked Officer Robbins to remind him to get a phone charger. Once again, even when

directly confronted with information about Brian’s having a phone, Officer Robbins failed to

follow up on why Brian had claimed he didn’t have a phone, which Brian claimed was the reason

why he felt it was necessary to confiscate Gabby’s phone.

140. After instructing Brian and Gabby not to contact each other for the night, Officer

Robbins drove Brian to a motel and let Gabby leave in her van.

141. Officer Robbins has since acknowledged, “I know I made mistakes that day.”

142. Roughly two weeks after Gabby’s encounter with the Moab Police Department,

Brian brutally murdered her by strangulation, hiding her body at a campsite in Wyoming.

143. Gabby’s death was predicted by Officer Pratt when he stated at the scene, “You

know why the domestic assault code is there. It’s there to protect people. The reason they don’t

give us discretion on these things is because too many times women who are at risk want to go

back to their abuser, they just wanted him to stop, and they don’t want to be separated, they don’t

want him charged, they don’t want him to go to jail. And then they end up getting worse and

27
worse treatment, and then they end up getting killed”, but he nevertheless intentionally chose not

to follow the statute, stating, “I don’t care if we use the actual letter of the law.”

144. In a subsequent review of the officers’ handling of their encounter with Brian and

Gabby, Captain Brandon Ratcliffe of the Price City Police Department concluded that the

officers made several mistakes, including misinterpreting and misapplying Utah law and failing

to properly investigate. He concluded that he could not rule out that Gabby’s murder might have

been prevented if the officers had acted properly.

145. On information and belief, prior to his being hired by Moab City Police

Department, Officer Pratt had been credibly accused of engaging in serious misconduct,

including abuse of his police power and domestic violence.

146. Between 2008 and 2017, Officer Pratt served as an officer and then as police chief

in Salina, Utah. During his time as police chief in Salina, Pratt carried on several extra-marital

affairs in the small town. One of the women (“Witness 1”) Pratt was involved with between

approximately March 2017 and June 2017 has provided credible testimony that Pratt improperly

used his position to use government buildings for sex. Witness 1 states that it was Pratt’s regular

practice to not follow through on investigations or to sweep cases under the rug to avoid work,

stating “It’s too much paperwork,” or “There’s no way I’m doing all that paperwork.”

147. Witness 1 states that Pratt improperly used his position as police chief to

improperly manipulate her and to sexually harass her. Witness 1 states that when she intended to

disclose Pratt’s pervasive misconduct, Pratt threatened to kill her. Pratt pulled Witness 1 over in

her car, with her 5-year-old daughter in the back seat. Pratt credibly and clearly threatened her

stating, “If any of this gets out, I will kill you with a crowbar.” On another occasion, Pratt told

28
her that he had been so angry with her that, “If this had been a week ago, I would have been

digging a grave and you would have been in it.”

148. As a domestic abuser himself, who has used authority and threats of physical

violence to control and intimidate sexual partners, it becomes clear why Officer Pratt was

fundamentally biased in his approach to the investigation, identifying with Gabby’s abuser,

ignoring the victim, and intentionally looking for loopholes to get around the requirements of

Utah law and his duty to protect Gabby.

149. Witness 1 subsequently reported some of Pratt’s misconduct and harassment of

her to city officials. A short time later, in July 2017, Pratt abruptly announced his resignation,

claiming that he was “leaving full-time law enforcement” to “pursue other interests and

experience life from new vantage points.” https://midutahradio.com/news/local-news/salina-

city-police-chief-to-resign/.

150. After resigning as police chief in Salina, Pratt explained in publicly published

statements online and in podcasts that he had become “disillusioned” with police work and that it

was his practice to find “loopholes” to avoid applying the law, stating "I'd find my own

loopholes, perfectly legal and I think very. . . just loopholes.” https://www.the-

sun.com/news/3798017/gabby-petito-brian-laundrie-utah-officer-slammed-the-profession/.

151. As an officer who described himself as being “disillusioned” with police work

and admitted to “finding loopholes” to avoid applying the law, Officer Pratt should never have

been rehired as an officer for the Moab Police Department. Pratt’s dangerous approach is

evident throughout his interaction with Gabby and Brian as he manipulated the investigation by

29
intentionally looking for loopholes to get around the requirements of Utah law and his duty to

protect Gabby.

152. Upon information and belief, Officer Pratt has continued his pervasive pattern of

sexual and professional misconduct in Moab, having sex with witnesses in cases he is involved

in and using police vehicles for sex.

153. Upon information and belief, Officer Pratt is currently the subject of an internal

affairs investigation for professional and sexual misconduct involving sex with another Moab

Police Department officer.

154. Moab City Police Department, including Chief Edge, knew or should have known

about Officer Pratt’s prior misconduct when hiring him to join the Moab City Police Department.

Moab City Police Department, including Chief Edge, knew or should have known that Officer

Pratt, who had a history of pervasive professional and sexual misconduct, including sexual

harassment and intimate partner violence, is manifestly unfit and unsafe to be a police officer.

155. Rather than terminating Officer Pratt as unfit and unsafe for police duty, Moab

City Police Department has promoted him to detective and been assigned as a school resource

officer at all three schools in the Grand County School District.

156. In 2018, Moab City Police Department entered into a written agreement with the

Utah Domestic Violence Coalition and Seekhaven, Inc., a local domestic violence resource

center and shelter, wherein Moab “commit[ed] to faithfully following all essential elements of

the Lethality Assessment Protocol-Maryland Model”, the (“LAP”), including training, reporting

and faithful implementation of lethality assessment screens when responding to cases of reported

domestic violence.

30
 157. In 2019, Moab City Police Department renewed its commitment to full and

faithful implementation of the LAP for a period of three (3) years.

158. Upon information and belief, Moab failed to faithfully implement the LAP and

was not actively training its officers or requiring use of the LAP by its officers at the time of the

incident in August of 2021. An officer who was employed be the Moab City Police Department

has reported that Moab was not using the LAP at the time and that the LAP was Moab’s policy

on paper, but not in practice.

159. As a result of Moab City Police Department’s failure to follow its own policies

and obligations to actively employ the LAP when responding to and/or investigating the reported

cases of domestic violence, Defendants failed to use the LAP when responding the incident

involving Gabby and Brian.

160. Underscoring the inadequacy of Moab City Police Department’s resources,

procedures, and training relating to domestic violence, and demonstrating that it would have

been feasible for the department to have sufficient resources, procedures, and training, the

department has advertised a job opening for Police Detective – Domestic Violence Specialist,

almost a year after Gabby’s death.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(NEGLIGENCE)

161. Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference all previous paragraphs above as though

fully set forth below.

162. Defendants had a special relationship with Gabby. And Gabby reasonably relied

on them to properly investigate and enforce the law after receiving reports of domestic violence

between Brian and Gabby.

31
 163. Defendants detaining Brian and Gabby had a duty to exercise reasonable care to,

among other things, properly investigate, and enforce Utah law governing reports of domestic

abuse between Brian and Gabby.

164. Defendants also had a duty to follow police policies and legislative mandates

regarding domestic violence incidents.

165. Defendants also had a duty to exercise reasonable care and to provide appropriate

training, supervision, instruction, discipline, and control over subordinates.

166. Defendants also had a duty to exercise reasonable care and to promulgate, create,

implement, maintain, and enforce appropriate policies regarding responses to reports of domestic

violence.

167. Officer Pratt also intentionally acted or failed to act without just cause or excuse

and was aware that his conduct would probably result in injury.

168. Defendants breached their duty by failing to exercise reasonable care and were

negligent when, among other things, they failed to:

a. enforce Utah law that prohibits police officers from exercising

enforcement discretion, including issuing a citation or making an arrest and imposing an

automatic no-contact order;

b. investigate inconsistencies in Brian’s version of events;

c. properly evaluate whether Brian was the predominant aggressor;

d. properly assess Brian and Gabby’s confrontation to determine whether, as

in many domestic abuse situations, the victim was protecting her abuser;

32
 e. arrange, facilitate, or provide immediate and adequate notice of the rights

of victims and of the remedies and services available to victims of domestic violence;

f. provide appropriate training, supervision, instruction, discipline, and

control of officers on evaluating and investigating domestic violence incidents, including but not

limited to identifying signs of ongoing domestic abuse and properly identifying dominant

aggressors in a potentially abusive relationship; and

g. create, implement, and enforce appropriate policies regarding

investigations of domestic violence, including but not limited to well-accepted practices such as

conducting threat assessments.

169. Believing that law enforcement authorities were properly handling the domestic

violence incident, Gabby’s parents discontinued their efforts to intervene, to fly Gabby home,

and to have her van shipped home.

170. Defendants’ failure to exercise reasonable care in investigating and evaluating the

facts surrounding Brian and Gabby’s confrontation and intentionally subverting Utah law

relating to domestic violence exposed Gabby to further and escalating domestic violence, leaving

her to eventually be strangled to death by Brian.

171. Defendants’ negligence was a proximate cause of Gabby’s injuries and damages,

including but not limited to further domestic violence, culminating in a savage attack resulting in

Gabby’s death.

172. Gabby otherwise suffered additional harm and incurred damages due to

Defendants’ negligence.

33
 173. Plaintiffs have a good-faith argument that their negligence claim is warranted by

existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the modification or reversal of existing law.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(FAILURE TO TRAIN, SUPERVISE, CONTROL, INSTRUCT, OR DISCIPLINE AND NEGLIGENT
HIRING)

174. Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference all previous paragraphs above as though

fully set forth below.

175. At all relevant times, the Moab Police Department, Chief Edge, Assistant Chief

Palmer and John/Jane Doe were engaged in policy-making to supervise and control all policies,

practices, rules, guidelines, customs, and regulations regarding police functions, as well as all

hiring decisions.

176. At all relevant times, the Moab Police Department, Chief Edge, Assistant Chief

Brayden, and John/Jane Doe had duties to train, supervise, control, instruct, and discipline

subordinates concerning, among other things, issues regarding proper investigations and

evaluations of domestic violence and proper enforcement of non-discretionary Utah law.

177. More specifically, the Moab Police Department, Chief Edge, Assistant Chief

Brayden, and John/Jane Doe had a duty to provide the training necessary to ensure that

subordinates would: adequately investigate self-evident falsities in Brian’s account of the

circumstances that triggered his confrontation with Gabby; evaluate the statutory factors for

determining the predominant aggressor; properly assess domestic violence instances, based on

informed assessments about whether an abused person is protecting their abuser; and enforce

rather than subvert non-discretionary Utah law.

34
 178. At all relevant times, the Moab Police Department, Chief Edge, Assistant Chief

Brayden, and John/Jane Doe had a duty to exercise reasonable care when hiring officers,

including, among other things to ensure prospective officers had not previously engaged in

misconduct or otherwise demonstrated they were unfit for police work.

179. The Moab Police Department, Chief Edge, Assistant Chief Brayden, and

John/Jane Doe subjected Gabby to further domestic violence—culminating in her brutal

murder—when they hired and retained Officer Pratt, who had a history of pervasive professional

and sexual misconduct, including sexual harassment and intimate partner violence, and

manifestly unfit and unsafe to be a police officer and also when they failed to train, supervise,

control, instruct, or discipline subordinates concerning, among other things, issues regarding

proper investigations and evaluations of domestic violence and proper enforcement of non-

discretionary Utah law.

180. In fact, Assistant Chief Brayden actively instructed subordinates to search the

domestic assault statute in an attempt to subvert the officers’ obligations to enforce non-

discretionary Utah law.

181. Based on Assistant Chief Braydon’s instructions, the officers coached Gabby to

provide answers that they incorrectly claimed allowed them to subvert non-discretionary laws

regarding domestic violence.

182. The Moab Police Department, Chief Edge, and Assistant Chief Brayden knew or

should have known that subordinates who were not adequately trained, supervised, controlled,

instructed, or disciplined were likely to mishandle reports of domestic violence and fail to

properly enforce Utah law.

35
 183. The Moab Police Department, Chief Edge, Assistant Chief Brayden, and

John/Jane Doe knew or should have known that Officer Pratt had a history of pervasive

professional and sexual misconduct, including sexual harassment and intimate partner violence,

and was manifestly unfit and unsafe to be a police officer.

184. The failure to train, supervise, control, instruct, or discipline subordinates, and the

failure to exercise reasonable care in hiring officers caused subordinates to breach their duty to

Gabby, resulting in harm and related damages, including but not limited to Gabby’s death.

185. The failure to follow the Moab City Police Department’s policies and obligations

to actively employ the LAP caused subordinates to breach their duty to Gabby, resulting in harm

and related damages, including but not limited to Gabby’s death.

186. Plaintiffs have a good faith argument that this claim is warranted by existing law

or by a nonfrivolous argument for the modification or reversal of existing law.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(SURVIVAL)

187. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate herein the previous allegations of this

complaint.

188. Pursuant to Utah Code § 78B-3-107, Gabby’s claims did not abate upon her

death, and Plaintiffs have a cause of action against Defendants for special and general damages

associated with such claims.

189. Plaintiffs have a good faith argument that this claim is warranted by existing law

or by a nonfrivolous argument for the modification or reversal of existing law.

36
 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(WRONGFUL DEATH)

190. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate herein the previous allegations of this
complaint.
191. Pursuant to Utah Code § 78B-3-106, Gabby’s heirs have a cause of action against

Defendants for wrongful death associated with Gabby’s underlying claims for negligence and

failure to train, and they are entitled to general and special damages for, among other things,

costs associated with Gabby’s death, the value of services Gabby would have provided, loss of

Gabby’s society, comfort, association, love, counsel, care, consortium and protection, loss of the

reasonable expectation to associate with Gabby for the rest of her natural life, and for any and all

other damages as may be just under the circumstances of the case.

192. Plaintiffs have a good faith argument that this claim is warranted by existing law

or by a nonfrivolous argument for the modification or reversal of existing law.

RELIEF REQUESTED

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request the following relief:

1. For each of their First, Second, and Third Causes of Action, Plaintiffs seek

judgment on Gabby’s behalf against Defendants for an amount in excess of $50,000,000, and in

excess of the minimum jurisdictional amount and sufficient to qualify for Tier 3, as defined by

Rule 26(c)(3) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure for, among other things, personal injuries,

pain and suffering, loss of chance, mental anguish, impaired earning capacity, lost wages, and

other special and general damages; for prejudgment interest, for post-judgment interest, for the

costs of this suit, including attorney’s fees, and for such further relief as the Court deems proper.

2. For their Fourth Cause of Action, Plaintiffs seek judgment on Plaintiffs’ behalf

against Defendants for an amount in excess of $50,000,000, and in excess of the minimum

37
jurisdictional amount and sufficient to qualify for Tier 3, as defined by Rule 26(c)(3) of the Utah

Rules of Civil Procedure for, among other things, cost associated with Gabby’s death, funeral

expenses, pain and suffering, loss of chance, mental anguish, the value of services Gabby would

have provided, loss of society, comfort, association, love, counsel, care, consortium and

protection, loss of the reasonable expectation of Plaintiffs to associate with Gabby, and other

special and general damages; for prejudgment interest, for post-judgment interest, for the costs of

this suit, including attorney’s fees, and for such further relief as the Court deems proper.

JURY DEMAND

Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs have tendered the

statutory jury fee and demand a trial by jury for all issues that can be tried by a jury.

DATED this 1st day of March 2023.

PARKER & MCCONKIE

__/s/ Brian C. Stewart______________

Brian C. Stewart
Steven Jensen
James W. McConkie
Bradley H. Parker
W. Alexander Evans

ZIMMERMAN BOOHER

__/s/ Dick J. Baldwin____________

Troy L. Booher
J. Frederic Voros, Jr.
Dick J. Baldwin

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs’ Address:
Joseph Petito

38