Opinion
CASE NO. CV 10-2243 JAK (RZx)
12-06-2011
DONATA HARDY Plaintiff, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES; LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT; BART LANDSMAN, and DOES 1-10, Defendants.
Assigned to: Honorable John A. Kronstadt
Courtroom: 750 (Roybal)
Assigned to: Magistrate Ralph Zarefsky
Courtroom: 540 (Roybal)
JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL
VERDICT
This action came on regularly for trial by jury on November 8, 2011, with Plaintiff, DONATA HARDY, appearing in person and by RAMI M. KAYYALI, her attorney, and Defendants CITY OF LOS ANGELES and BART LANDSMAN, appearing in person and by and through RICHARD M. ARIAS, Deputy City Attorney; a jury of nine person was duly impaneled and sworn; witnesses testified; evidence was received; and after being duly instructed by the court, the jury deliberated and thereon returned the following special verdict:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DONATA HARDY Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES; LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT; BART LANDSMAN, and DOES 1-10, Defendants.
CASE NO. CV 10-2243 JAK (RZx)
Assigned to: Honorable John A. Kronstadt
Courtroom: 750 (Roybal)
Assigned to: Magistrate Ralph Zarefsky
Courtroom: 540 (Roybal)
JOINT SPECIAL VERDICT FORM
WE, THE JURY, in the above-entitled action find the following special verdict on the questions submitted to us:
QUESTION NO. 1: Did the Plaintiff prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant Bart Landsman, arrest Plaintiff Donata Hardy without probable cause?
ANSWER: Yes __ No X
If you answer "No" to Question No. 1, have your presiding juror sign and date this verdict form.
If you answer "Yes" to Question No. 1, proceed to answer Question No. 2. QUESTION NO. 2: Did the Plaintiff prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the arrest of Plaintiff without probable cause was a cause of injury, damage or loss to the Plaintiff Donata Hardy?
ANSWER: Yes __ No ___
If you answer "No" to Question No. 2, have your presiding juror sign and date this verdict form.
If you answer "Yes" to Question No. 2, proceed to answer Question No. 3.
QUESTION NO. 3: Did the Plaintiff prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant Bart Landsman intentionally and deliberately submitted false information to the prosecutor?
ANSWER: Yes __ No ___
Now answer Question No. 4.
QUESTION NO. 4: What do you find by a preponderance of the evidence to be the total amount of damages, if any, suffered by Plaintiff?
a. Economic loss, lost earnings $___________________________
b. Non-economic loss, including physical pain, mental suffering and/or emotional
distress $___________________________
TOTAL $___________________________
Now answer Question No. 5.
QUESTION NO. 5: Did the Plaintiff prove by clear and convincing evidence that Defendant acted with malice?
ANSWER: Yes __ No ___
Now answer Question No. 6.
QUESTION NO. 6: Did the Plaintiff prove by clear and convincing evidence that Defendant acted with Oppression?
ANSWER: Yes __ No __
Now answer Question No. 7.
QUESTION NO. 7: Did the Plaintiff prove by clear and convincing evidence that Defendant acted with Reckless disregard?
ANSWER: Yes __ No __
DATED: 11-9-2011
FOREPERSON
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY THE FOREPERSON
JUDGMENT
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
1. That judgment be, and hereby is, entered in favor of the Defendants and against the Plaintiff;
2. That the Plaintiff shall take nothing;
3. That the Defendants recover their costs of suit herein.
JOHN A. KRONSTADT
United States District Judge