Clerk of the Superior Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
A. Nasui, Deputy
9/17/2025 1:24:37 AM
Filing ID 20592772
Laki Syph
4001 N Central Ave Apt 449
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Cell: 602-500-6981
Email: Lsyph@yahoo.com
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA
Laki Syph,
Plaintiff,
v.
BASIS Phoenix Central;
Michelle Astwood, Head of School, in her individual and official capacity;
Michael Hancock, Head of Operations, in his individual and official capacity;
BASIS.ed (BASIS Educational Group, LLC);
Defendants.
Case No.: CV2025-029701
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
(Jury Trial Demanded)
I. PARTIES
1. Plaintiff Laki Syph is a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona.
2. Defendant BASIS Phoenix Central is a public charter school operating in Phoenix, Arizona.
3. Defendant Michelle Astwood was, at all relevant times, the Head of School at BASIS
Phoenix Central, acting under color of law and within the scope of her employment.
4. Defendant Michael Hancock was, at all relevant times, the Head of Operations at BASIS
Phoenix Central, acting under color of law and within the scope of his employment.
5. Defendant BASIS.ed (BASIS Educational Group, LLC) is the managing entity and operator
of BASIS Phoenix Central.II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6. Jurisdiction is proper under A.R.S. § 12-821 and related provisions.
7. Venue is proper in Maricopa County because the events occurred in this county and all
parties reside or operate here.
8. Plaintiff has complied with A.R.S. § 12-821.01 by filing a Notice of Claim dated June 20,
2025 (Exhibit A and Exhibit B).
III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
9. On March 4, 2025, Plaintiff Laki Syph attempted to pickup his minor daughter after BASIS
Phoenix Central let out. He was informed by the front office admin Ms. Neisha in front of his
minor son, that his minor daughter could not be located.
10. For nearly two hours, BASIS staff failed to notify law enforcement or accurately account
for the child’s whereabouts.
11. Plaintiff was told by the Office Admin Ms. Neisha not to call the police so he called
anyway and was denied access to his child. 911 Call recording [Exhibit C].
12. These negligent actions created emotional distress and endangered the welfare of
Plaintiff’s child.
13. On June 15, 2025, Plaintiff was wrongfully arrested and charged with aggravated
criminal damage, based on misrepresentations by BASIS employees [Exhibit D].
14. Plaintiff was jailed for two days without access to diabetes medication, suffered
emotional trauma, reputational harm, and incurred financial damages.
15. No criminal charges were ultimately filed; the court informed Plaintiff he was not
required to appear.
16. BASIS personnel also submitted retaliatory and false reports to the Phoenix Police
Department and multiple reports to Arizona Department of Child Safety [Exhibit E].
17. These reports were dismissed as unfounded and closed because they were found to be
false allegations, but caused significant emotional and reputational harm to Plaintiff and his
family.
IV. CAUSES OF ACTION
Count 1: False Arrest and Wrongful Imprisonment
18. Defendants caused Plaintiff’s arrest without probable cause in violation of Arizona law.19. Their conduct parallels the precedent in Lacey & Larkin v. Arpaio, where the false arrest of
Phoenix New Times’ co-founders resulted in a $3.75 million settlement.
20. Similarly, Defendants here instigated Plaintiff’s arrest stand legal process based on knowingly
false or retaliatory allegations, violating Plaintiff’s constitutional and statutory rights.
21. Plaintiff suffered loss of liberty, humiliation, and emotional trauma.
Count 2: Negligence
22. Defendants had a duty to ensure student safety and communicate with parents in
emergencies.
23. Defendants breached this duty and caused foreseeable harm.
Count 3: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
24. Defendants' conduct—deliberately withholding information, lying to authorities, and
retaliating—was extreme, outrageous, and intentional.
Count 4: Retaliation and Abuse of Process
25. Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff for asserting his parental rights, using police and
CPS systems maliciously and without basis.
Count 5: Medical Negligence
26. Plaintiff’s medical needs were disregarded during detention caused by Defendants’ false
reporting, leading to pain and suffering.
V. DAMAGES
27. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $3,250,000 for:
- False arrest
- Emotional trauma
- Lost wages
- Medical hardship
- Reputational harm
- Professional disruption to Plaintiff’s spouse
- Psychological effects on Plaintiff’s children
28. Plaintiff also seeks punitive damages to punish and deter malicious or reckless conduct
by Defendants.VI. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all claims so triable.
VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in his favor and
award:
A. Compensatory damages in the amount of $3,250,000 or as proven at trial;
B. Punitive damages in an amount to be determined;
C. Costs of suit and reasonable attorney’s fees;
D. Pre- and post-judgment interest;
E. Any other relief the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
Laki Syph
4001 N. Central Ave #449
Phoenix, Arizona 85012
(Email: Lsyph@yahoo.com)
Pro Se Plaintiff
https://www.instagram.com/basis.ed/?hl=en
https://enrollbasis.com/arizona/
https://enrollbasis.com/phoenix/
https://www.facebook.com/basis.ed/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/basis-educational-group
https://enrollbasis.com/about-basis-charter-schools/contact-basis-charter-schools/
Copyright © 2025 Basis.ed Lawsuit - All Rights Reserved.
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.