Opinion
AMENDED JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT, STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES AND COURT ORDER.
JOHN A. KRONSTADT, District Judge.
TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
The above entitled action came on regularly for trial on September 26, 2013, before Judge John A. Kronstadt in Courtroom 750, of the U.S. District Court, Central District of California. Plaintiff TYLER H. WILLIS was represented by and through his attorneys of record, Sonia Mercado, Esq. of Sonia Mercado & Associates, and Mark Pachowicz of the Law Offices of Mark Pachowicz. Defendants DEPUTY ANTHONY D. VAZQUEZ, DEPUTY MARK V. FARINO, DEPUTY JORGE F. SANCHEZ, DEPUTY PEDRO L. GUERRERO, SERGEANT CHARLES McDANIEL, LIEUTENANT XAVIER AGUILAR, CAPTAIN DANIEL CRUZ, SHERIFF LEE BACA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, and LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, were represented by Thomas C. Hurrell, Esq. and Diane Martinez, Esq. of Hurrell Cantrall LLP.
WHEREAS, a jury of eight (8) were regularly impaneled and sworn. Witnesses were sworn and testified. 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.
WHEREAS on October 11, 2013, after the jury deliberated, it returned into Court with its verdict consisting of the special issues submitted to the jury and the answers given thereto by the jury.
WHEREAS on April 1, 2014, the Court granted LIEUTENANT XAVIER AGUILAR's motion to Amend the Judgment and ordered that Judgment be entered in favor of LIEUTENANT XAVIER AGUILAR as to Plaintiff's excessive force claim and that the Judgment be amended accordingly.
The Judgment is amended to reflect the jury findings upon the following special verdict on the following questions submitted, upon the Court's April 1, 2014, Order and upon the parties October 15, 2013, stipulation:
SPECIAL VERDICT FORM
Answer the questions below unless the directions advise you not to answer a specific question.
DEPUTY DEFENDANTS (UNLAWFUL SEARCH CLAIM)
QUESTION NO. 1: Did the plaintiff prove the following defendant(s) violated plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment rights in relation to the search of plaintiff's person?
Please answer separately as to each defendant:
Answer Question No. 2 only if you answered "YES" to Question No. 1 and only as to that defendant(s).
QUESTION NO. 2: Did the plaintiff prove the defendant(s)'s conduct was the moving force that caused injury to plaintiff as to the violation of plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment rights in relation to the search of plaintiff's person?
Please answer separately as to each defendant:
DEPUTY DEFENDANTS (EXCESSIVE FORCE CLAIM)
QUESTION NO. 3: Did the plaintiff prove the following defendant(s) violated plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment rights in relation to the force used against plaintiff?
Please answer separately as to each defendant:
Answer Question No. 4 only if you answered "YES" to Question No. 3 and only as to that defendant(s).
QUESTION NO. 4: Did the plaintiff prove the defendant(s)'s conduct was the moving force that caused injury to plaintiff as to the violation of plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment rights in relation to the force used against plaintiff?
Please answer separately as to each defendant:
DEPUTY DEFENDANTS (BATTERY)
QUESTION NO. 5: Did the plaintiff prove the following defendant(s) commit a battery upon plaintiff?
Please answer separately as to each defendant:
Answer Question No. 6 only if you answered "YES" to Question No. 5 and only as to that defendant(s).
QUESTION NO. 6: Did the plaintiff prove the defendant(s)'s conduct was a substantial factor in causing injury to plaintiff?
Please answer separately as to each defendant:
DEPUTY DEFENDANTS (INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS)
QUESTION NO. 7: Did the plaintiff prove the following defendant(s) intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon plaintiff?
Please answer separately as to each defendant:
Answer Question No. 8 only if you answered "YES" to Question No. 7 and only as to that defendant(s).
QUESTION NO. 8: Did the plaintiff prove the defendant(s)'s conduct was a substantial factor in causing injury to plaintiff as to the intentional infliction of emotional distress against plaintiff?
Please answer separately as to each defendant:
DEPUTY DEFENDANTS (NEGLIGENCE)
QUESTION NO. 9: Did the plaintiff prove the following defendant(s) were negligent?
Please answer separately as to each defendant:
Answer Question No. 10 only if you answered "YES" to Question No. 9 and only as to that defendant(s).
QUESTION NO. 10: Did the plaintiff prove the defendant(s)'s conduct was a substantial factor in causing injury to plaintiff?
Please answer separately as to each defendant:
SUPERVISOR DEFENDANTS
Answer Question No. 11 only if you answered "YES" as to any defendant in response to Question No. 2 or 4.
QUESTION NO. 11: Did plaintiff prove the following supervisor defendant(s) violated plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment rights in relation to the force used against plaintiff?
Please answer separately as to each supervisor defendant:
Answer Question No. 12 only if you answered "YES" to Question No. 11 and only as to that defendant(s).
QUESTION NO. 12: Did the plaintiff prove the supervisor defendant(s)'s conduct was the moving force that caused injury to plaintiff?
Please answer separately as to each defendant:
Answer Question No. 13 only if you answered "YES" as to any defendant in response to Question No. 2, 4, 6, 8, or 10.
QUESTION NO. 13: Did plaintiff prove that the following supervisor defendant(s) was negligent?
Please answer separately as to each supervisor defendant:
Answer Question No. 14 only if you answered "YES" to Question No. 13 and only as to that defendant(s).
QUESTION NO. 14: Did the plaintiff prove the supervisor defendant(s)'s conduct was substantial factor in causing injury to plaintiff?
Please answer separately as to each supervisor defendant:
MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS
Answer Question No. 15 only if you answered "YES" as to any defendant in response to Question No. 2 or 4.
QUESTION NO. 15: Did the plaintiff prove the deputy defendant(s) violated plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment rights in relation to the force claim pursuant to an expressly adopted official policy or a longstanding practice or custom of defendants County of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department?
Answer Question No. 16 only if you answered "YES" to Question No. 15.
QUESTION NO. 16: Did the plaintiff prove the expressly adopted official policy or longstanding practice or custom of defendants County of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department was the moving force in causing injury to plaintiff?
Answer Question No. 17 only if you answered "YES" as to any defendant(s) in response to Question Nos. 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, or 16. Otherwise, please answer no further questions, and have the foreperson sign and date and return this form.
QUESTION NO. 17: What is the amount of damages, if any, that plaintiff incurred as a result of defendants' conduct?
Past Non-Economic $75,000 Future Non-Economic $50,000
Answer Question No. 18 only if you answered "YES" as to any defendant(s) in response to Question Nos. 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, or 16.
QUESTION NO. 18: Do you find that any conduct of any defendant(s) was malicious, oppressive, or in reckless disregard of any of the plaintiff's rights?
Please answer separately as to each defendant:
QUESTION NO. 19:
WHEREAS on October 15, 2013, the parties agreed and stipulated to have judgment entered against the following defendants for punitive damages in favor of plaintiff as follows:
Anthony Vazquez $10,000 Pedro Guerrero $10,000 Mark Farino $10,000 Daniel Cruz $35,000 Leroy Baca $100,000
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that plaintiff TYLER H. WILLIS is entitled to Judgment against defendants DEPUTY ANTHONY VAZQUEZ, DEPUTY MARK FARINO, DEPUTY PEDRO GUERRERO, CAPTAIN DANIEL CRUZ, SHERIFF LEROY BACA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, and LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT as set forth above.