Dirks et al v. Los Angeles Community College District et al

Filing 310

JUDGMENT FOLLOWING JURY VERDICT by Judge Gary A. Feess. IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that plaintiff CHARLES DIRKS shall take nothing from defendants Sergeant JOE GRASSO, Deputy RICKY BAKER, and Deputy DARREN INANA, and that costs are awarded to defendants as determined by the costs bill to be submitted by defendants, (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (bp)

JS-6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION

10

PROFESSOR CHARLES DIRKS,
11 YESENIA FRANCO, AND JESSE
MARTINEZ,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Los
15 Angeles County Sheriff LEE BACA in
his personal capacity, Sgt. JOE
16 GRASSO, Sgt. ANDREW
MAGALLERIES, Deputy MICHAEL
17 MCCARTY, Security Officer
ROXANNE CHAVEZ, Deputy
18 BARKER, Security Officer
KIMBERLY MELANDY, and DOES
19 1-10 individually and in their official
capacities
20
21

CASE NO. CV07-2664 GAF (FMOx)
Assigned to Judge Gary A. Feess
Courtroom “740”
JUDGMENT FOLLOWING JURY
VERDICT
Action Filed: April 23, 2007
Pretrial Conference: July 30, 2012
Trial Date: August 28, 2012

Defendants.

22
23 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
24

The above-entitled action came on regularly for trial on August 28, 2012, at

25 8:30 a.m., in Courtroom “740” of the United States District Court, Central District
26 of California, Western Division, with The Honorable Gary Allen Feess, presiding.
27 Plaintiff CHARLES DIRKS was represented by and through his attorneys of record
28 Saul Reiss, Esq., of the Law Offices of Saul Reiss, and Joe H. Freeman, Esq., of Joe

1 H. Freeman and Associates. Defendants Sergeant JOE GRASSO, Deputy RICKY
2 BAKER, and Deputy DARREN INANA were represented by and through their
3 counsel of record Thomas C. Hurrell, Esq. and Mariam Kaloustian, Esq., of Hurrell
4 Cantrall LLC.
5

A jury of eight (8) persons was regularly impaneled and sworn on August 28,

6 2012. Witnesses were sworn and testified. After hearing evidence and arguments
7 of counsel, the jury was duly instructed by the Court, and the cause was submitted to
8 the jury with directions to return a verdict as to the claims against defendants
9 Sergeant JOE GRASSO, Deputy RICKY BAKER, and Deputy DARREN INANA.
10 The jury deliberated and thereafter returned to the Court on August 29, 2012, with
11 an eight (8) to zero (0) verdict in favor of defendants Sergeant JOE GRASSO,
12 Deputy RICKY BAKER, and Deputy DARREN INANA.
13

Specifically, the jury found in favor of defendants Sergeant JOE GRASSO,

14 Deputy RICKY BAKER, and Deputy DARREN INANA on the special verdict with
15 respect to the following questions submitted:
16
17

FIRST AMENDMENT CLAIM

18
19

Did Plaintiff Charles Dirks prove by a preponderance of the evidence that, at

20

the time of his arrest on April 27, 2006, he was engaged in the exercise of his

21

rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution?

22

YES____ NO__√_

23 / / /
24 / / /
25 / / /
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /
-2-

1

FOURTH AMENDMENT CLAIM

2
3

Did Plaintiff Charles Dirks prove by a preponderance of the evidence that, at

4

the time that he was placed under arrest, the defendants violated his rights by

5

arresting him without probable cause to believe that he had committed a

6

violation of one or more sections of the California Penal Code. Answer

7

separately as to each Defendant:

8

3.1 Sgt. Grasso

YES____ NO__√_

9

3.2 Dep. Inana

YES____ NO__√_

10

3.3 Dep. Baker

YES____ NO__√_

11
12

Now therefore, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that

13 plaintiff CHARLES DIRKS shall take nothing from defendants Sergeant JOE
14 GRASSO, Deputy RICKY BAKER, and Deputy DARREN INANA, and that costs
15 are awarded to defendants as determined by the costs bill to be submitted by
16 defendants.
17
18 DATED: September 5, 2012
19

By:
THE HONORABLE GARY A. FEESS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-