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

Filing 133

AMENDED JUDGMENT 130 132 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Plaintiff IAN MICHAEL MEDJES, have and recover nothing by reason of each and all his claims as set forth in the Complaint against Defendants KEVI N BAYONA, 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 and that Defendants shall recover their costs in accordance with Local Rule 54. JUDGMENT IS HEREBY ENTERED IN FAVOR OF ALL DEFENDANTS ON ALL CLAIMS. IT IS SO ORDERED. (lom)

1
2
3
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,
Plaintiffs,

12
13

Hon. Dean D. Pregerson - Ctrm. 9C, 9th Fl.
Hon. Mag. Jacqueline Chooljian- Ctrm. 20, 3rd Fl.

vs.

21
22

AMENDED JUDGMENT

LOS ANGELES POLICE
DEPARTMENT OFFICERS
WUNDER, WINGER, WHITELAW,
RAMIREZ, MORALES,
NALBORZCYK, BAYONA,
JEPPSON, NAKAMURA,
DUYANEM, SADANAGA,
PROSSER, MARAVILLA, TAGG;
KAISER FOUNDATION
HOSPITALS; DR. GARO BALKIAN,
MD, and DOES 1-10,
Defendants.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20

23
24

This action came on regularly for trial on February 7, 2017, in Courtroom

25 “9C” 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. The Defendants
28 MANDEE

DUYANEN,

JAMES

JEPPSON,
1

FRANCISCO

MARAVILLA,

1 ELIMELEC

LEMUS-MORALES,

CORY

NAKAMURA,

MICHAEL

2 NALBORCZYK, DET. DEBBIE PROSSER, GUS RAMIREZ, DET. MARIE
3 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 _
15 ____________________________
16

________/s/ __________
FOREPERSON OF THE JURY

17
18

By reason of dismissals, the rulings of the Court, and the special verdict,

19 Defendants MANDEE DUYANEN, JAMES JEPPSON, FRANCISCO
20 MARAVILLA, ELIMELEC LEMUS-MORALES, CORY NAKAMURA,
21 MICHAEL NALBORCZYK, DET. DEBBIE PROSSER, GUS RAMIREZ, DET.
22 MARIE SADANAGA, LISA TAGG, MATTHEW WHITELAW, SGT. DOUGLAS
23 WINGER and SGT. CHARLES WUNDER are entitled to judgment against Plaintiff
24 IAN MICHAEL MEDJES.
25

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

26 Plaintiff IAN MICHAEL MEDJES, have and recover nothing by reason of each and
27 all his claims as set forth in the Complaint against Defendants KEVIN BAYONA,
28 MANDEE

DUYANEN,

JAMES

JEPPSON,
5

FRANCISCO

MARAVILLA,

1 ELIMELEC

LEMUS-MORALES,

CORY

NAKAMURA,

MICHAEL

2 NALBORCZYK, DET. DEBBIE PROSSER, GUS RAMIREZ, DET. MARIE
3 SADANAGA, LISA TAGG, MATTHEW WHITELAW, SGT. DOUGLAS
4 WINGER and SGT. CHARLES WUNDER and that Defendants shall recover their
5 costs in accordance with Local Rule 54.
6
7
8

JUDGMENT IS HEREBY ENTERED IN FAVOR OF ALL DEFENDANTS ON
ALL CLAIMS.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12
13
14

DATED: March 21, 2017

____________________________________
HONORABLE DEAN D. PREGERSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6