Elizabeth Lopez et al v. City of Los Angeles et al

Filing 105

JUDGMENT by Magistrate Judge Margaret A. Nagle. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, DECREED AND ADJUDGED that judgment on the merits be entered in favor of Defendants, CITY OF LOS ANGELES, NICHOLAS CHO, JOHNNY CERVANTES, and DAVID ROSS and against Plaintiffs JAMES DUFF LYALL, JOSEPH HOLLIDAY, BENJAMIN WOOD, SASHA COSTAZA-CHOCK, MAGNOLIA BECERRA, ELIZABETH LOPEZ, AND JESSICA RODRIGUEZ. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (mz)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

JAMES DUFF LYALL et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a public
entity, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

ELIZABETH LOPEZ et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a public
entity, et al.,
Defendants.

22

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV09-07353 MAN
Case No. CV10-6976 MAN
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
AFTER TRIAL BY JURY
Trial Date: May 6, 2013
Time:
9:00am
Ctrm:
580 (Roybal)

23
24

TO THE HONORABLE COURT, TO PLAINTIFFS AND TO THEIR COUNSEL

25

OF RECORD THEREIN:

26

On May 6, 2013, the foregoing matter was called for trial in Courtroom 580 of the United

27

States District Court, the Honorable Magistrate Judge Margaret A. Nagle presiding. The

28
-1-

1

parties answered ready for Trial. On May 6, 2013, a panel of jurors was called and sworn.

2
3
4
5

The case was tried to the jury and on May 10, 2013, the case was then submitted to
the jury for deliberation.
On May 10, 2013, the jury returned a unanimous verdict as follows:

6
7

We, the jury, answer the questions submitted to us as follows:

8
9

QUESTION NUMBER 1

10

Do you find that plaintiffs proved by a preponderance of the evidence that any defendant

11

police officer caused the unreasonable detention of any of the following plaintiffs?

12

Answer: Yes

No

X

13
14

If you answered “yes” to Number 1, please place an “X” next to the name of each plaintiff

15

below you find was unreasonably detained and below that individual’s name, place an “X”

16

next to the name of the officer or officers who caused the unreasonable detention. If you

17

answered “no” to Question Number 1, proceed to Question Number 2.

18
19

....

20
21

QUESTION NUMBER 2

22

Do you find that plaintiff Joseph Holiday proved by a preponderance of the evidence that

23

any defendant police officer caused him to be arrested without probable cause?

24

Answer: Yes

No

X

25
26

If you answered “yes” to Number 2, please place an “X” next to the name of the officer or

27

officers who caused plaintiff Joseph Holiday to be arrested without probable cause. If you

28

answered “no” to Question Number 2, proceed to Question Number 3.
-2-

1

....

2
3

QUESTION NUMBER 3

4

Do you find that plaintiffs proved by a preponderance of the evidence that any defendant

5

police officer caused any of the following plaintiffs to be unreasonably searched?

6

Answer: Yes

No

X

7
8

If you answered “yes” to Number 3, please place an “X” next to the name of each plaintiff

9

below who you find was unreasonably searched and below that individual’s name, and place

10

an “X” next to the name of the officer or officers who caused the unreasonable search. If

11

you answered “no” to Question Number 3, proceed to Question Number 4.

12
13

....

14
15

QUESTION NUMBER 4

16

Do you find that plaintiffs proved by a preponderance of the evidence that any defendant

17

police officer caused any plaintiff’s First Amendment rights to be violated?

18

Answer: Yes

No

X

19
20

If you answered “yes” to Number 4, please place an “X” next to the name of each plaintiff

21

below whose First Amendment right you find were [sic] violated and below that individual’s

22

name, place an “X” next to the name of the officer or officers who caused the First

23

Amendment violation. If you answered “no” to Question Number 4, proceed to Question

24

Number 5.

25
26

....

27
28
-3-

1

QUESTION NUMBER 5

2

Did plaintiffs prove by a preponderance of the evidence that any defendant intentionally

3

interfered with any plaintiff’s civil rights by threats, intimidation, or coercion?

4

Answer: Yes

No

X

5
6

If you answered “yes” to Number 5, please place an “X” next to the name of each plaintiff

7

below whose civil rights you find were interfered with by threats, intimidation, or coercion

8

and place an “X” next to the name of the defendant(s) who intentionally interfered with his

9

or her civil rights by threats, intimidation or coercion.

10
11

....

12
13
14

Dated: 5-10-13

/S/
FOREPERSON

15
16
17
18

ORDER

19
20

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, DECREED AND ADJUDGED that

21

judgment on the merits be entered in favor of Defendants, CITY OF LOS ANGELES,

22

NICHOLAS CHO, JOHNNY CERVANTES, and DAVID ROSS and against

23

Plaintiffs JAMES DUFF LYALL, JOSEPH HOLLIDAY, BENJAMIN WOOD,

24

SASHA COSTAZA-CHOCK, MAGNOLIA BECERRA, ELIZABETH LOPEZ,

25

AND JESSICA RODRIGUEZ (Javier Cortez and D’Angelo Jones having been

26

dismissed, with prejudice, prior to the commencement of trial upon agreement for both

27

parties), that the Plaintiff take nothing; and that the Defendants, CITY OF LOS

28

ANGELES, NICHOLAS CHO, JOHNNY CERVANTES, and DAVID ROSS, as the
-4-

1

prevailing parties, shall be entitled to recover their costs reasonably incurred in defense

2

of this action per the cost bill in the amount of $__________________________.
(To be determined from the Bill of Costs.)

3
4
5
6

Dated: May 28, 2013

7

MARGARET A. NAGLE

8

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-