Eduardo Cervantes v. County of Los Angeles et al
Filing
134
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR REMITTITUR by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: The award of damages is remitted from $900,000 to $500,000. Plaintiff shall have fourteen days from the date of this Order to accept or reject the remittitur. Should Plaintiff accept, a final judgment shall issue. Should Plaintiff reject the remittitur, the court shall grant Defendants Motion for a New Trial in the Alternative. (lc). Modified on 9/3/2015 (lc).
1
2
O
3
4
CLOSED
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
EDUARDO CERVANTES,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
16
17
18
v.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES;
DEPUTY PAUL CRUZ #412035
individually and as a peace
officer; DEPUTY VICTOR
CISNEROS #519470
individually and as a peace
officer,
Defendants.
___________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CV 12-09889 DDP (MRWx)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR REMITTITUR
[Dkt. 126]
19
20
Presently before the court is Defendants Paul Cruz and Victor
21
Cisneros’ Motion for Remittitur.
22
of the parties and heard oral argument, the court grants the motion
23
and adopts the following Order.
24
I.
25
Having considered the submissions
Background
Plaintiff Eduardo Cervantes alleged that Defendants Cisneros
26
and Cruz, two Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputies, used excessive
27
force on Plaintiff in the course of an arrest.
28
at trial that on November 23, 2010, he was looking at his cell
Plaintiff testified
1
phone in his parked car in the parking lot of a billiards hall when
2
Defendants ordered Plaintiff to leave his vehicle.
3
testified that Defendants then punched Plaintiff in the face and
4
neck and took Plaintiff to the ground, upon which he struck his
5
head.
6
went to the ground, but did not clearly record the incident in
7
further detail.
8
9
Plaintiff
Surveillance video confirmed that Plaintiff and Defendants
Photos of Plaintiff after the incident show a bruised and
swollen eye and scrapes on Plaintiff’s face and the back of his
10
head.
11
similar injuries.
12
told him several times that he “was fine.”
13
prescribed Plaintiff 800 milligrams of ibuprofen, which Plaintiff
14
had already been taking for pain related to his prosthetic leg.
15
Plaintiff disagreed with the doctor’s assessment, and testified
16
that he still has occasional pain in and around his eye, and that
17
he has suffered from floaters in his vision since the incident.
18
Plaintiff acknowledged on cross examination, however, that while
19
working a construction job in 2012, he was struck in the head by a
20
falling chimney.
21
A video interview of Plaintiff after the arrest shows
Plaintiff testified that his treating physician
The doctor also
Plaintiff further testified that he suffers from emotional
22
pain from the incident.
Although Plaintiff only spent “a few
23
hours” in jail, it pained him to tell his family that he had been
24
incarcerated.
25
had been in jail prior to the incident as well.
26
testified that he has difficulty sleeping and suffers from
27
nightmares about being framed or killed by police officers, and
28
that he is now very nervous about going out in public for fear of
On cross examination, Plaintiff acknowledged that he
2
Plaintiff
1
being pulled over and assaulted.
2
to visit the billiard hall every day even after the incident.1
3
Plaintiff did, however, continue
Defendants did not put on a case.
During closing arguments,
4
Plaintiff’s attorney asked the jury to award $900,000.
5
included $200,000 for past physical pain, $300,000 for past
6
emotional pain and suffering, and $400,000 for future pain and
7
suffering.
8
and awarded him $900,000.2
9
II.
10
This figure
After deliberating, the jury found for the Plaintiff
Defendants now move for a remittitur.
Discussion
When a court determines that a damages award is excessive, it
11
may grant a defendant’s motion for a new trial or conditionally
12
deny the motion, provided the plaintiff accepts a remittitur.
13
Fenner v. Dependable Trucking Co., Inc., 716 F.2d 598, 603 (9th
14
Cir. 1983); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(1)(A).
15
reduced damage award, “must reflect the maximum amount sustainable
16
by the proof.”
17
Cir. 2014) (internal quotation and citation omitted).
18
plaintiff may choose either to accept the reduced damage award or
19
to submit to a new trial.
20
The remittitur, or
Oracle Corp. v. SAP AG, 765 F.3d 1081. 1094 (9th
The
Fenner, 716 F.2d at 603.
As an initial matter, the court rejects Defendants’ contention
21
that, to the extent the jury awarded any damages for Plaintiff’s
22
future pain and suffering, such award violated the court’s
23
24
25
1
26
27
28
Plaintiff had aspirations to be a professional billiards
player.
2
The jury also found that Defendant Cisneros acted
maliciously, oppressively, or in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s
rights, but awarded no punitive damages.
3
1
instructions.3
2
instructed the jury to consider, among other factors in determining
3
the amount of compensatory damages, “the nature and extent of the
4
injuries” and “the physical, emotional pain and suffering
5
experienced.”
6
ongoing nature of Plaintiff’s physical and emotional injuries.4
7
The court’s jury instruction number eighteen
That instruction sufficiently encompassed the
Defendants and Plaintiff cite to a series of verdicts in civil
8
rights cases to support their respective arguments that the jury’s
9
damages award here was or was not excessive.
Damage awards,
10
however, “turn on the facts of each case.”
Mattschei v. United
11
States, 600 F.2d 205, 209 (9th Cir. 1979).
“While analogies to,
12
and comparisons with, other cases may be helpful on many types of
13
issues, their usefulness on questions of damages is extremely
14
limited.”
15
1975).
16
utility by their presence on the extreme ends of the factual
17
spectrum.
18
did not behave in any unlawful or dangerous manner, nor were his
19
physical injuries in any way life-threatening or severe.
United States v. English, 521 F.2d 63, 72 (9th Cir.
The comparisons drawn here are further limited in their
Unlike the plaintiffs in the cases cited, Plaintiff here
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
Plaintiff’s objection regarding the timeliness of
Defendants’ motion is overruled. The clerk’s Judgment on the
Verdict (Dkt. 113), entered after the return of the Special Verdict
Form, to which Plaintiffs did not object, (Dkt. 100, 101) was not a
Final Judgment, as explicitly stated in the Judgment on the Verdict
itself.
4
26
27
28
Although Defendants now contend that the instruction should
have included the words “and which with reasonable probability will
be experienced in the future,” Defendants raised no such argument
or objection at the time jury instructions were argued. See 9th
Cir. Manual of Model Civ. Instructions No. 5.2 (2007).
4
1
Defendants focus on the extent of Plaintiff’s physical
2
injuries.
3
repeatedly declared him to be “fine,” as well as Plaintiff’s
4
subsequent on-the-job head injury, the evidence showed relatively
5
minor, though not insignificant, physical harm from the incident.
6
Plaintiff suffered bruising and swelling of the face and a
7
contusion to the back of his head after being tackled backward to
8
the pavement.
9
internal ocular bleeding.
10
11
Even putting aside evidence that Plaintiff’s physician
He continues to suffer headaches, eye pain, and some
Defendants presented no medical evidence
to refute Plaintiff’s claims.
As Defendants acknowledge, a damage award for emotional
12
distress may be based on a plaintiff’s testimony alone.
See Zhang
13
v.American Gem Seafoods, 339 F.2d 1020, 1040 (9th Cir. 2003).
14
Nevertheless, Defendants’ argument that the court should reduce the
15
award to no more than $75,000 appears to discount the evidence of
16
Plaintiff’s emotional injuries.
17
distress during and immediately after the incident, which triggered
18
painful memories of bullying and feelings of humiliation,
19
embarrassment, and shame.
20
effects, including nightmares, difficulty sleeping, and fear of
21
encountering law enforcement so severe that it impinged upon
22
Plaintiff’s ability to leave the house and enjoy activities with
23
his family in public spaces.
24
situation might well have lent particular credence to his
25
accounting of his emotional distress.
26
leg, was sitting in a parked car, with the windows down, in a
27
parking lot on private property while examining his new cell phone
28
in broad daylight.
Plaintiff experienced emotional
The incident caused lingering emotional
The particulars of Plaintiff’s
Plaintiff, who has only one
He was then ordered out of his vehicle based on
5
1
the officers’ assessment that his car windows were illegally
2
tinted.
3
punched in the face and tackled backward to the pavement.
4
of these unique circumstances could exacerbate what otherwise might
5
have been milder emotional injuries.
6
Within seconds of exiting the vehicle, Plaintiff was
Evidence
Considering the totality of the evidence presented, the court
7
finds that the jury’s award of $900,000 in compensatory damages was
8
excessive.5
9
significantly higher than the $75,000 maximum advocated by
That said, the evidence could support an amount
10
Defendants.
11
was sufficient to support a maximum award of $500,000.
12
III. Conclusion
13
The court concludes that the evidence before the jury
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion for
14
Remittitur is GRANTED.
15
$900,000 to $500,000.
16
date of this Order to accept or reject the remittitur.
17
Plaintiff accept, a final judgment shall issue.
18
reject the remittitur, the court shall grant Defendants’ Motion for
19
a New Trial in the Alternative.
The award of damages is remitted from
Plaintiff shall have fourteen days from the
Should
Should Plaintiff
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
23
24
Dated: September 3, 2015
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge
25
26
27
28
5
The court also notes that at the time of the trial, there
were news stories about instances of excessive force occurring
throughout the country.
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?