Lopez v. Gelhaus

8 Citing cases

  1. Estate of Lopez v. Gelhaus

    871 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 2017)   Cited 161 times
    Holding that a boy carrying what appeared to be an AK-47 rifle was "not committing a serious crime" justifying deadly force

    The district court denied the motion in relevant part on January 20, 2016. See Estate of Lopez v. Gelhaus , 149 F.Supp.3d 1154, 1158-65 (N.D. Cal. 2016).At the first step of the qualified immunity analysis, the district court held that a jury could find that Gelhaus acted unreasonably when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Andy.Id . at 1162.

  2. Vellenoweth v. City of Napa

    22-cv-05779-RS (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2023)

    Defendants offer only the argument that survivorship is not a separate cause of action, but do not explain why Plaintiffs cannot properly claim survivorship for decedent's suffering or property damage. As pled, however, it is unclear to what extent Plaintiffs' seventh claim for survivorship is duplicative of the survival claims they assert in their first and second claims under § 1983. Est. of Lopez v. Gelhaus, 149 F.Supp.3d 1154, 1166 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Even if Plaintiffs establish standing to sue as successors in interest

  3. Tolan v. Yellowstone Cnty.

    CV 20-02-BLG-SPW (D. Mont. Nov. 22, 2022)

    In Lopez, the 9th Circuit rejected summary judgment for the officer when there was a factual dispute over how the plaintiffs gun moved; it was not enough for the officers show that the “barrel [of the rifle] was beginning to rise” since “it could have been raised to a slightly-higher level [than the ground] without posing any threat to the officers. Lopez, 871 F.3d at 1007-08 (citing Estate of Andy Lopez v. Gelhaus, 149 F.Supp.3d 1154, 1162 (N.D. Cal. 2016)). In fact, a reasonable jury could find any upward movement of the barrel of the gun to be incidental to the plaintiff turning around to look at the officers rather than a threatening movement.

  4. Estate of Wilson v. Cnty. of San Diego

    Case No. 20-cv-457-BAS-DEB (S.D. Cal. Jul. 10, 2020)   Cited 4 times

    "[A] wrongful death claim . . . must be brought by the decedent's dependents, and is limited to 'claims for personal injuries they have suffered as a result of a wrongful death.'" Estate of Lopez v. Gelhaus, 149 F. Supp. 3d 1154, (N.D. Cal. 2016) (quoting Davis v. Bender Shipbuilding & Repair Co., 27 F. 3d 426, 429 (9th Cir. 1994)). The Court therefore dismisses the claim as brought by the estate; the claim is now only brought by Plaintiff Jackson.

  5. Bowles v. City of San Jose

    Case No. 19-cv-01027-NC (N.D. Cal. Jun. 16, 2020)

    Question: Do you think you did comply with police commands? Answer: Yes. Question: What makes you say that? Answer: My door was open."); Id. at 111:4-7 ("And I remember drawing a peace sign on the windshield, like, I'm not a threat, you know, peace, you know."). This case is more like Estate of Lopez v. Gelhaus, where a child held a replica gun that officers mistook for an AK-47 but the child did not threaten officers with the toy. 149 F. Supp. 3d 1154, 1160 (N.D. Cal. 2016), aff'd and remanded sub nom. Estate of Lopez by and thorugh Lopez v. Gelhaus, 871 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 2017).

  6. Tan Lam v. City of L. Banos, Corp.

    No. 2:15-cv-00531-MCE-KJN (E.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2017)   Cited 2 times

    This Court agrees. See Estate of Lopez v. Gelhaus, 149 F. Supp. 3d 1154, 1167 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (Finding that since a Fourth Amendment wrongful death cause of action provides a mechanism to seek damages for pre-death pain and suffering, an independent cause of action for pain and suffering is duplicative.). Accordingly, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's third cause of action is GRANTED.

  7. Johnson v. City of Roswell

    Civ. No. 15-1071 GBW/CG (D.N.M. Aug. 18, 2016)   Cited 2 times

    See, e.g., Cooper, 735 F.3d 153, 159 (4th Cir. 2013) (denying qualified immunity based on the finding that "an officer does not possess the unfettered authority to shoot a member of the public simply because that person is carrying a weapon. Instead, deadly force may only be used by a police officer when, based on a reasonable assessment, the officer or another person is threatened with the weapon."); Bouggess v. Mattingly, 482 F.3d 886, 896 (6th Cir. 2007) (in denying summary judgment based on qualified immunity, holding that "even when a suspect has a weapon, but the officer has no reasonable belief that the suspect poses a danger of serious physical harm to him or others, deadly force is not justified"); Bennett ex rel. Estate of Bennett v. Murphy, 120 F. App'x 914 (3d Cir. 2005) (denying qualified immunity under "immediate threat" standard in case of officer who shot armed, non-fleeing suspect who did not point weapon at anyone other than himself); Estate of Lopez v. Gelhaus, 149 F. Supp. 3d 1154 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (in denying qualified immunity, noting that "[t]he Ninth Circuit has held that the mere possession of a weapon is not sufficient to justify the use of deadly force . . ."); see also Gonzales-Guerrero v. City of San Jose, No. CV12-03541 PSG, 2013 WL 3303144, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 28, 2013) ("Mere possession of a firearm, without more, cannot justify shooting to kill."). The Court therefore concludes that, accepting Plaintiffs' account of the incident, they have demonstrated a clearly established constitutional violation precluding dismissal on the basis qualified immunity.

  8. Saurman v. Peter's Landing Prop. Owner

    324 Cal. Rptr. 3d 59 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024)   Cited 1 times

    " (Estate of Lopez v. Gelhaus (N.D.Cal. 2016) 149 F.Supp.3d 1154, 1166–1167 [applying California survivorship laws, a federal court held that "when [Lopez] died, his right to assert a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim survived his death and may be asserted by his estate"].) [23] It is not necessary that a complete cause of action exist at the time of death in order for a person’s rights to survive that may later mature into an actionable claim by the successor in interest.