Ricardo Lara et al v. County of Los Angeles et al

Filing 239

JUDGMENT: Plaintiffs RICARDO LARA and ANA LARA shall recover nothing by reason ofthe Complaint from Defendants COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES and NICHOLAS LOPEZ-GIL. Each party shall bear its own costs by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. Related to: Order, 238 (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (lc)

1
2
3
4
5

RICKEY IVIE (S.B.N: 76864)
[e-mail]
DAVIDA M. FRIEMAN (S.B.N: 232096)
[e-mail]
IVIE, McNEILL & WYATT
444 S. Flower Street, 18th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2919
[phone]; Fax [phone]

Public Entity
Exempt from Filing Fee

Attorneys for Defendants,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

6

JS-6

7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12

RICARDO LARA, ANA LARA,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; LEE )
BACA IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY )
)
AS SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES
)
COUNTY; LEE BACA IN HIS
)
INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY;
)
DEFENDANT DOE DEPUTY
“LOPEZ” AND DOE DEFENDANTS )
)
2-30, Inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)

CASE NO.: CV12-08469 DDP(SHx)
NOTICE OF CASE RELATED TO
Alex Rosas, et al. v. Leroy Baca,
CV 12-00428 DDP (SHx)
JUDGMENT
Pretrial Conf.: February 5, 2015
Trial Date:
February 10, 2015

23
24

This case came on regularly for trial on February 10, 2015 to February 19,

25

2015 in Courtroom 3 of this Court, the Honorable Dean D. Pregerson presiding;

26

the Plaintiffs appearing by Attorneys Hermez Moreno and Brian Bush from

27

Boucher L.L.P. and Michael Alder, from Alderlaw P.C. and Defendants appearing

28

-1–
_________________________________________________________________________

[Proposed] Judgment

1

by Attorneys Rickey Ivie and Davida M. Frieman from IVIE, MCNEILL &

2

WYATT.

3

A jury of 9 persons was regularly impaneled and placed under oath.

4

Witnesses were placed under oath and testified. After hearing the evidence and

5

arguments of counsel, the jury was duly instructed by the Court and the case was

6

submitted to the jury with directions to return a verdict. The jury deliberated and

7

thereafter returned into court with its verdict consisting of the issues submitted to

8

the jury and the answers given thereto by the jury, which said verdict was in words

9

and figures as follows, to wit:

10

We the Jury answer the questions submitted to us as follows:

11
12

COUNTY DEFENDANT (MUNICIPAL LIABILITY CLAIM)

13
14

QUESTION NO. 1: Did the Plaintiff prove by a preponderance of the

15

evidence that one or more Los Angeles County Sheriffs’ Department custodial

16

officers violated Plaintiff Ricardo Lara’s Eighth Amendment Rights against cruel

17

and unusual punishment by directing another inmate to force Plaintiff to perform

18

exercises known as “fichas” or “burpees”?

19
20

YES ___

NO

X

21
22

Answer Question No. 2 only if you answered “YES” to Question No. 1.

23

If you answered “NO” to Question No. 1, skip to Question No. 4

24
25

QUESTION NO. 2: Did the Plaintiff prove by a preponderance of the

26

evidence that the Los Angeles County Sheriffs’ Department custodial officers

27

violated Plaintiff Ricardo Lara’s Eighth Amendment Rights against cruel and

28

-2–
_________________________________________________________________________

[Proposed] Judgment

1

unusual punishment pursuant to a longstanding practice or custom of Defendant

2

County of Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department?

3
4

YES ___

NO

___

5
6

Answer Question No. 3 only if you answered “YES” to Question No. 2.

7

If you answered “NO” to Question No. 2, skip to Question No. 4

8
9

QUESTION NO. 3: Did the Plaintiff prove by a preponderance of the

10

evidence that the longstanding practice or custom of Defendant County of Los

11

Angeles’ Sheriff’s Department was a moving force behind the injuries to Plaintiff?

12
13

YES ___

NO

___

14
15

DEPUTY DEFENDANT (EIGHTH AMENDMENT EXCESSIVE

16

FORCE/CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT CLAIM)

17
18

QUESTION NO. 4: Did the Plaintiff prove by a preponderance of the

19

evidence that Defendant Nicholas Lopez-Gil directed another inmate to force

20

Plaintiff to perform exercises known as “fichas” or “burpees”?

21
22

YES ___

NO

X

23
24

Answer Question No. 5 only if you answered “YES” to Question No. 4.

25

If you answered “NO” to Question No. 4, skip to Question No. 7

26
27
28

-3–
_________________________________________________________________________

[Proposed] Judgment

1

QUESTION NO. 5: Did the Plaintiff prove by a preponderance of the

2

evidence that Defendant Nicholas Lopez-Gil’s conduct violated Plaintiff Ricardo

3

Lara’s Eighth Amendment Right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment?

4
5

YES ___

NO

___

6

Answer Question No. 6 only if you answered “YES” to Question No. 5.

7

If you answered “NO” to Question No. 5, skip to Question No. 7

8
9

QUESTION NO. 6: Did the Plaintiff prove by a preponderance of the

10

evidence that Defendant Nicholas Lopez-Gil’s conduct was a moving force that

11

caused the injuries to Plaintiff Ricardo Lara?

12
13

YES ___

NO

___

14
15

DEPUTY DEFENDANT (NEGLIGENCE)

16
17

QUESTION NO. 7: Did the Plaintiff prove by a preponderance of the

18

evidence that Defendant Nicholas Lopez-Gil was negligent by allowing another

19

inmate to force Plaintiff to perform exercises known as “fichas” or “burpees”?

20
21

YES ___

NO

X

22
23

Answer Question No. 8 only if you answered “YES” to Question No. 7.

24

If you answered “NO” to Question No. 7, skip to Question No. 9

25
26
27
28

QUESTION NO. 8: Did the Plaintiff prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that Defendant Nicholas Lopez-Gil’s negligence in relation to the act of
-4–
_________________________________________________________________________

[Proposed] Judgment

1

allowing another inmate to force Plaintiff to perform exercises known as “fichas”

2

or “burpees” was a substantial factor in causing injury to Plaintiff Ricardo Lara?

3
4

YES ___

NO

___

5
6
7

DEPUTY DEFENDANT (INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL

8

DISTRESS)

9

Answer Question No. 9 only if you answered “YES” to Question No. 4.

10
11

QUESTION NO. 9: Was Defendant Nicholas Lopez-Gil’s conduct in

12

directing another inmate to force Plaintiff to perform exercises known as “fichas”

13

or “burpees” outrageous conduct?

14
15

YES ___

NO

___

16
17

Answer Question No. 10 only if you answered “YES” to Question No. 9.

18

If you answered “NO” to Question No. 9, skip to Question No. 13

19
20

QUESTION NO. 10: Did Plaintiff prove by a preponderance of the

21

evidence that Defendant Nicholas Lopez-Gil intended to cause Plaintiff Ricardo

22

Lara emotional distress?

23
24

YES ___

NO

___

25
26

Answer Question No. 11 only if you answered “YES” to Question No. 10.

27

If you answered “NO” to Question No. 10 skip to Question No. 13

28

-5–
_________________________________________________________________________

[Proposed] Judgment

1
2
3
4

QUESTION NO. 11: Did Plaintiff Ricardo Lara suffer severe emotional
distress?

5
6

YES ___

NO

___

7
8

Answer Question No. 12 only if you answered “YES” to Question No. 11.

9

If you answered “NO” to Question No. 11, skip to Question No. 13

10
11

QUESTION NO. 12: Did the Plaintiff prove by a preponderance of the

12

evidence that Defendant Nicholas Lopez-Gil’s conduct was a substantial factor in

13

causing Plaintiff Ricardo Lara’s severe emotional distress?

14
15

YES ___

NO

___

16
17
18

DEPUTY DEFENDANT (INTERFERENCE WITH MARITAL RELATIONS)
Answer Question No. 13 only if you answered “YES” to Question No. 4.

19
20

QUESTION NO. 13: Did the Plaintiff prove by a preponderance of the

21

evidence that Defendant Nicholas Lopez-Gil violated Plaintiff Ana Lara’s

22

Fourteenth Amendment Right to be free from government interference in her

23

marriage with Ricardo Lara by directing another inmate to force Plaintiff to

24

perform exercises known as “fichas” or “burpees”?

25
26

YES ___

NO

___

27
28

-6–
_________________________________________________________________________

[Proposed] Judgment

1

Answer Question No. 14 only if you answered “YES” to Question No. 13.

2

If you answered “NO” to Question No. 13, Skip to Question No. 16

3

QUESTION NO. 14: Did Defendant Nicholas Lopez-Gil’s conduct shock

4
5

the conscience?

6

YES ___

7

NO

___

8

Answer Question No. 15 only if you answered “YES” to Question No. 14.

9

If you answered “NO” to Question No. 14, skip to Question No. 15

10
11

QUESTION NO. 15: Did the Plaintiff prove by a preponderance of the

12
13

evidence that Defendant Nicholas Lopez-Gil’s conduct was a moving force that

14

caused the injuries to Plaintiff Ana Lara?

15

YES ___

16

NO

___

17
18

DAMAGES
Only answer the following questions if you answered “YES” as to any

19
20

Defendant on any or all of the following questions: 3, 6, 8, 12, 15. Otherwise,

21

please answer no further questions and have the foreperson sign and date this

22

form.

23
24
25

QUESTION NO. 16: What is the amount of damages, if any, that Plaintiff
Ricardo Lara Incurred as a result of Defendant(s)’ conduct?

26
27
28

Past Non-Economic

___________
-7–

_________________________________________________________________________

[Proposed] Judgment

Future Non-Economic

1

___________

2

Only answer Question No. 17 if you answered “YES” to Question No. 15.

3
4

Otherwise, please skip to question 18.

5

QUESTION NO. 17: What is the amount of damages, if any, that Plaintiff

6
7

Ana Lara Incurred as a result of Defendant(s)’ conduct?

8

Past Loss of Consortium

10

__________

Future Loss of Consortium

9

__________

11
12

PUNITIVE
Only answer the following questions if you answered “YES” as to any

13
14

Defendant on any or all of the following questions: 3, 6, 8, 12, 15. Otherwise,

15

please answer no further questions and have the foreperson sign and date this

16

form.

17
18

QUESTION NO. 18: Did you find that the conduct of any of the following

19

defendant(s) was malicious, oppressive, or in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s civil

20

rights?

21
22

Defendant Nicholas Lopez-Gil __________

23
24

It appearing by reason of said verdict that:

25

Defendants COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES and DEPUTY NICHOLAS LOPEZ-

26

GIL, are entitled to judgment against Plaintiffs RICARDO LARA and ANA

27

LARA.

28

-8–
_________________________________________________________________________

[Proposed] Judgment

1

Now, therefore, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that said

2

Plaintiffs RICARDO LARA and ANA LARA shall recover nothing by reason of

3

the Complaint from Defendants COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES and NICHOLAS

4

LOPEZ-GIL. Each party shall bear its own costs.

5
6
7
8

Dated: July 22, 2015

______________________________
Honorable Dean D. Pregerson
United States District Judge

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

-9–
_________________________________________________________________________

[Proposed] Judgment