Ian Michael Medjes v. The City of Los Angeles et al

Filing 130

JUDGMENT by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Judgment is entered in favor of all defendants, MANDEE DUYANEN, JAMES JEPPSON, FRANCISCO MARAVILLA, ELIMELEC LEMUS-MORALES, CORY NAKAMURA, MICHAEL NALBORCZYK, DET. DEBBIE PROSSER, GUS RAMIREZ, DET. MARIE SADANAGA, LISA TAGG, MATTHEW WHITELAW, SGT. DOUGLAS WINGER and SGT. CHARLES WUNDER on all claims. Defendant KEVIN BAYONA is hereby dismissed with prejudice from this matter. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (lc)

Download PDF
1 2 3 JS-6 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CASE NO. CV14-05377 DDP (JCx) 11 IAN MICHAEL MEDJES, 13 JUDGMENT Plaintiffs, 12 vs. 14 LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICERS 15 WUNDER, WINGER, WHITELAW, 16 RAMIREZ, MORALES, 17 NALBORZCYK, BAYONA, JEPPSON, NAKAMURA, 18 DUYANEM, SADANAGA, 19 PROSSER, MARAVILLA, TAGG; KAISER FOUNDATION 20 HOSPITALS; DR. GARO BALKIAN, 21 MD, and DOES 1-10, Defendants. 22 23 24 This action came on regularly for trial on February 7, 2017, in Courtroom 25 “7C” of the United States District Court, Central District of California, Central 26 Division, the Honorable Dean D. Pregerson, Judge Presiding. The Plaintiff IAN 27 MICHAEL MEDJES, was represented by attorney Larry A. Peluso. 28 Defendants MANDEE DUYANEN, JAMES 1 JEPPSON, The FRANCISCO 1 MARAVILLA, ELIMELEC LEMUS-MORALES, CORY NAKAMURA, 2 MICHAEL NALBORCZYK, DET. DEBBIE PROSSER, GUS RAMIREZ, DET. 3 MARIE SADANAGA, LISA TAGG, MATTHEW WHITELAW, SGT. DOUGLAS 4 WINGER and SGT. CHARLES WUNDER were present and represented by 5 attorneys Colleen R. Smith and Lisa W. Lee. Defendant KEVIN BAYONA is 6 hereby dismissed with prejudice from this matter. 7 The trial was bifurcated, with phase I addressing liability and compensatory 8 damages only. 9 A jury of 8 persons was regularly impaneled and sworn on February 7, 2017. 10 Witnesses were sworn and testified. On February 14, 2017, following the 11 presentation of evidence and argument during a jury trial which concluded February 12 14, 2017, the jury, in the above-entitled action, UNANIMOUSLY found as follows: 13 14 15 JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL VERDICT WE, THE JURY in the above-entitled action, unanimously find as follows on 16 the questions submitted to us: 17 18 QUESTION NO. 1: Has Plaintiff Medjes proved by a preponderance of the 19 evidence that any of the following Defendants violated his Fourth Amendment 20 Constitutional Rights by using excessive force against him? 21 Answer (check “Yes” or “No”) following the name of each Defendant: 22 23 FRANCISCO MARAVILLA YES_______ NO ✓____ 24 ELIMELEC LEMUS-MORALES YES_______ NO ✓____ 25 MICHAEL NALBORCZYK YES_______ NO ✓____ 26 GUS RAMIREZ YES_______ NO ✓____ 27 LISA TAGG YES_______ NO ✓____ 28 MATTHEW WHITELAW YES_______ NO ✓____ 2 1 CHARLES WUNDER YES_______ NO ✓____ 2 If you answered “No” as to each of the Defendants, please date and sign this form 3 where indicated below and return to the form to the Court. 4 If you answered “Yes” as to any Defendant, proceed to Question No. 2. 5 6 QUESTION NO. 2: For each “Yes” response you gave to Question No. 1, do you 7 find that Plaintiff Medjes has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the 8 Defendant’s conduct was the cause of injury to him? (If you responded “No” with 9 respect to a particular Defendant in Question No. 1, do not answer Question No. 2 10 with respect to that Defendant.) 11 Answer (check “Yes” or “No”) following the name of each Defendant: 12 FRANCISCO MARAVILLA YES_______ NO_______ 13 ELIMELEC LEMUS-MORALES YES_______ NO_______ 14 MICHAEL NALBORCZYK YES_______ NO_______ 15 GUS RAMIREZ YES_______ NO_______ 16 LISA TAGG YES_______ NO_______ 17 MATTHEW WHITELAW YES_______ NO_______ 18 CHARLES WUNDER YES_______ NO_______ 19 20 Please proceed to Question No. 3. 21 22 QUESTION NO. 3: Has Plaintiff Medjes proved by a preponderance of the 23 evidence that any of the following Defendants failed to intervene to prevent a 24 violation of his Fourth Amendment Constitutional Rights? 25 Answer (check “Yes” or “No”) following the name of each Defendant: 26 FRANCISCO MARAVILLA YES_______ NO ✓____ 27 ELIMELEC LEMUS-MORALES YES_______ NO ✓____ 28 MICHAEL NALBORCZYK YES_______ NO ✓____ 3 1 GUS RAMIREZ YES_______ NO ✓____ 2 LISA TAGG YES_______ NO ✓____ 3 MATTHEW WHITELAW YES_______ NO ✓____ 4 CHARLES WUNDER YES_______ NO ✓____ 5 6 If you answered “No” as to each of the Defendants, please proceed to Question No. 7 5. 8 If you answered “Yes” as to any Defendant, proceed to Question No. 4. 9 10 QUESTION NO. 4: For each “Yes” response you gave to Question No. 3, do you 11 find that Plaintiff Medjes has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the 12 Defendant’s conduct was the cause of injury to him? (If you responded “No” with 13 respect to a particular Defendant in Question No. 3, do not answer Question No. 4 14 with respect to that Defendant.) 15 Answer (check “Yes” or “No”) following the name of each Defendant: 16 FRANCISCO MARAVILLA YES_______ NO_______ 17 ELIMELEC LEMUS-MORALES YES_______ NO_______ 18 MICHAEL NALBORCZYK YES_______ NO_______ 19 GUS RAMIREZ YES_______ NO_______ 20 LISA TAGG YES_______ NO_______ 21 MATTHEW WHITELAW YES_______ NO_______ 22 CHARLES WUNDER YES_______ NO_______ 23 24 Please proceed to Question No. 5. 25 26 QUESTION NO. 5: Only answer the following question if you gave any “Yes” 27 responses to Question Nos. 2 or 4. If you gave only “No” responses to Question 28 Nos. 2 and 4, please date and sign this form where indicated below. 4 1 Has Plaintiff Medjes proved by a preponderance of the evidence that any of 2 the following Defendants acted with malice, fraud or oppression? 3 Answer (check “Yes” or “No”) following the name of each Defendant: 4 5 FRANCISCO MARAVILLA YES_______ NO_______ 6 ELIMELEC LEMUS-MORALES YES_______ NO_______ 7 MICHAEL NALBORCZYK YES_______ NO_______ 8 GUS RAMIREZ YES_______ NO_______ 9 LISA TAGG YES_______ NO_______ 10 MATTHEW WHITELAW YES_______ NO_______ 11 CHARLES WUNDER YES_______ NO_______ 12 13 Please date and sign below, and return this form to the Court. Thank you. 14 DATED: _2/14/17________________________/s/ __________ 15 ____________________________ FOREPERSON OF THE JURY 16 17 18 19 20 JUDGMENT IS HEREBY ENTERED IN FAVOR OF ALL DEFENDANTS ON ALL CLAIMS. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 25 26 DATED: March 8, 2017 ____________________________________ HONORABLE DEAN D. PREGERSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 27 28 5

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?