Durrell Anthony Puckett v. L.A.C.J. Employees

Filing 202

JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL VERDICT AFTER JURY TRIAL by Judge Robert J. Bryan: ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Plaintiff DURRELL ANTHONY PUCKETT have and recovernothing by reason of each and all of the claims set forth in his Second Amended Complaint agai nst Defendants DEPUTY JAQUEZ, DEPUTY ROMERO, DEPUTY RUIZ, DEPUTY CUEVA, DEPUTY SUAREZ, SERGEANT BERRY, SERGEANT MOSES, and SERGEANT RENFROW, and that Defendants DEPUTY JAQUEZ, DEPUTY ROMERO, DEPUTY RUIZ, DEPUTY CUEVA, DEPUTY SUAREZ, SERGEANT BERRY, SERGEANT MOSES, and SERGEANT RENFROW shall recover costs in accordance with Local Rule 54. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (am)

1

JS-6

SEKI, NISHIMURA & WATASE, LLP J. EDWIN RATHBUN, JR., SBN 221804 2 ANDREW C. PONGRACZ, SBN 258554 605 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 900 3 Los Angeles, California 90015 Phone: [phone]; FAX: [phone] E-mail: [e-mail]
5

Attorneys for Defendants, Deputy Jaquez, Sergeant Moses, Sergeant Berry, Deputy Ruiz, 6 Deputy Suarez, Deputy Romero, Sergeant Renfrow, Deputy Cueva
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DURRELL ANTHONY PUCKETT,

) Case No.: CV 07-7853-RJB ) ) JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL VERDICT Plaintiff, ) AFTER JURY TRIAL ) v. ) ) ) Trial: March 14, 2011 ) DEPUTY JAQUEZ, et al., ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ___________________________ )

This action came on regularly for trial on March 14, 2011 in Department 1 of the above-entitled United States District Court, Central District of California, the Honorable Robert J. Bryan Presiding; Plaintiff DURRELL ANTHONY PUCKETT appearing by attorney William Domnarski; Defendants DEPUTY JAQUEZ, DEPUTY ROMERO, DEPUTY RUIZ, DEPUTY CUEVA, DEPUTY SUAREZ, SERGEANT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

BERRY, SERGEANT MOSES, and SERGEANT RENFROW appearing by attorneys J. Edwin Rathbun, Jr. and Andrew C. Pongracz. A jury of 8 persons was regularly impaneled and sworn. Witnesses were sworn and testified. After

hearing the evidence, the jury was duly instructed by the Court. After arguments of counsel, 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 consisting of the issues submitted to the jury, and the answers given thereto by the jury, which said in words and figures as follows, to-wit: JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL VERDICT "TITLE OF THE COURT AND CAUSE" "The jury unanimously answers the following questions: [Check either `yes' or `no' for each question you are directed to answer.] (1) Has plaintiff Durrell Anthony Puckett proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the following defendants have violated his constitutional rights as described to you under 42 U.S.C. § 1983? Deputy Henry Jaquez Deputy Adrian Ruiz Sergeant Melinda Berry Sergeant Steve Moses Deputy Carlos Cueva Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No X X X X X

-2-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Deputy Mark Romero Deputy Pablo Suarez Sergeant Mark Renfrow

Yes Yes Yes

No No No

X X X

(2) Has plaintiff Durrell Anthony Puckett proved by a preponderance of the evidence that as a result of the actions of the following defendants, he, Durrell Anthony Puckett, suffered damages? Deputy Henry Jaquez Deputy Adrian Ruiz Sergeant Melinda Berry Sergeant Steve Moses Deputy Carlos Cueva Deputy Mark Romero Deputy Pablo Suarez Sergeant Mark Renfrow * * * Dated this 17th of March , 2011. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No X X X X X X X X

/s/ Jury Foreperson By reason of said special verdict, Defendants DEPUTY JAQUEZ, DEPUTY ROMERO, DEPUTY RUIZ, DEPUTY CUEVA, DEPUTY SUAREZ, SERGEANT BERRY, SERGEANT MOSES, and SERGEANT RENFROW are entitled to judgment against Plaintiff DURRELL ANTHONY PUCKETT. /// ///

-3-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Now, therefore, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Plaintiff DURRELL ANTHONY PUCKETT have and recover nothing by reason of each and all of the claims set forth in his Second Amended Complaint against Defendants DEPUTY JAQUEZ, DEPUTY ROMERO, DEPUTY RUIZ, DEPUTY CUEVA, DEPUTY SUAREZ, SERGEANT BERRY, SERGEANT MOSES, and SERGEANT RENFROW, and that Defendants DEPUTY JAQUEZ, DEPUTY ROMERO, DEPUTY RUIZ, DEPUTY CUEVA, DEPUTY SUAREZ, SERGEANT BERRY, SERGEANT MOSES, and SERGEANT RENFROW shall recover costs in accordance with Local Rule 54.

DATED: March 28, 2011

A

Robert J Bryan United States District Judge

-4-