Opinion
CASE NO. CV10-6427 SVW (AJWx)
09-08-2011
ADRIAN ALONZO, an individual, GRACE ACUNA, an individual, ABEL ALONZO, an individual, GUADALUPE ALONZO, an individual Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, DOES 1 THROUGH 10 inclusive, both in their personal and official capacities, Defendants.
[Assigned to the Hon. Stephen V. Wilson in Courtroom 6]
JUDGMENT
On March 30, 2011, the Court entered an Order re: Stipulation re: Dismissal of Causes of Action filed by Defendants, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, DEPUTY MICHAEL KENNARD, and DEPUTY MAT TAYLOR (collectively referred to as "Defendants") and Plaintiffs ADRIAN ALONZO, GRACE ACUNA; ABEL ALONZO and GUADALUPE ALONZO, dismissing the following causes of action with prejudice ("Order re: Stipulation"):
1. The Third Cause of Action (ADRIAN ALONZO's cause of action for Conspiracy);
2. The Fourth Cause of Action (ADRIAN ALONZO's cause of action for Supervisory Liability);
3. The Fifth Cause of Action (ADRIAN ALONZO's cause of action for Monell);
4. The Sixth Cause of Action (ADRIAN ALONZO's cause of action for Unconstitutional Search);
5. The Ninth Cause of Action (ADRIAN ALONZO's cause of action for Battery) as to DEPUTY MAT TAYLOR only;
6. The Thirteenth Cause of Action (GRACE ACUNA's cause of action for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress);
7. The Fourteenth Cause of Action (GRACE ACUNA's cause of action for Unconstitutional Search);
8. The Fifteenth Cause of Action (ABEL ALONZO's cause of action for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress);
9. The Sixteenth Cause of Action (ABEL ALONZO's cause of action for Unconstitutional Search);
10. The Seventeenth Cause of Action (GUADALUPE ALONZO's cause of action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress);
11. The Eighteenth Cause of Action (GUADALUPE ALONZO's cause of action for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress); and
12. The Nineteenth Cause of Action (GUADALUPE ALONZO's cause of action for Unconstitutional Search).
Through the above-stated Order re: Stipulation, the Court dismissed all of the causes of action alleged against the Defendants by ABEL ALONZO and GUADALUPE ALONZO; and the Court dismissed all of the federal causes of action against the Defendants by GRACE ACUNA.
On May 17, 2011, this action came on regularly for trial before Hon. Stephen V. Wilson in Courtroom 6 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Plaintiff ADRIAN ALONZO appeared by attorney David Haas. Defendants DEPUTY MICHAEL KENNARD and DEPUTY MAT TAYLOR appeared by attorneys Catherine M. Mathers and Christie B. Swiss of Collins Collins Muir + Stewart LLP. The Court stayed all remaining state causes of action by Plaintiffs ADRIAN ALONZO and GRACE ACUNA.
A jury of eight persons was regularly impaneled and sworn. Witnesses were sworn and testified.
On May 18, 2011, the Court dismissed ADRIAN ALONZO's cause of action for excessive force against DEPUTY MAT TAYLOR.
After hearing the evidence and arguments of counsel, the jury was duly instructed by the Court and the cause was submitted to the jury with directions to return a verdict on special issues. The jury deliberated and thereafter returned into court with its verdict as follows:
1) Did Defendant Michael Kennard use excessive force against Plaintiff Adrian Alonzo? Yes.
2) Did Defendant Michael Kennard arrest Plaintiff Adrian Alonzo without probable cause? No.
3) Did Defendant Mat Taylor arrest Plaintiff Adrian Alonzo without probable cause? No. . . .
4) Plaintiff Alonzo seeks damages for non-economic loss, including physical, emotional pain, and mental suffering. Please write down the amount of damages you award plaintiff: $2,500.00.
The jury was asked to answer four questions.
The jury made the following specific factual findings in answering the interrogatories:
1) Did plaintiff Alonzo try to scale the fence? YES.
2) Did plaintiff Alonzo spin towards the deputies before he was shot? YES.
3) Was plaintiff Alonzo pulling his hand out of his pocket before he was shot as defendant Kennard described? YES.
4) Did plaintiff Alonzo comply with the Defendants' commands to show his hands? NO.
On July 11, 2011, the Court heard the Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, or in the alternative, Motion for Qualified Immunity filed on behalf of Defendant DEPUTY MICHAEL KENNARD. The Court having considered the moving, opposition and reply papers and oral argument of counsel, entered an order on July 20, 2011 as follows:
" Defendant Kennard's Motion for Qualified Immunity is GRANTED. Plaintiff Alonzo shall take nothing from this action."
On August 2, 2011, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the stayed state law and dismissed them for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS ADJUDGED, ORDERED AND DECREED that Plaintiffs ADRIAN ALONZO, GRACE ACUNA; ABEL ALONZO and GUADALUPE ALONZO recover nothing from Defendants and that Defendants hereby have judgment entered in their favor.
IT IS FURTHER ADJUDGED, ORDERED and DECREED that Defendants be awarded their costs against and payable by Plaintiffs ADRIAN ALONZO, GRACE ACUNA, ABEL ALONZO, and GUADALUPE ALONZO in the sum of $_.
The Hon. Stephen V. Wilson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE