Charles Antuna et al v. County of Los Angeles et al

Filing 299

JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that final judgment in this action be entered as follows: Judgment is entered infavor of each Plaintiff and against Defendant Leroy Baca as follows, aswel l as costs and attorneys fees as provided by law: (a) Damages awarded Plaintiff David Waters: $128,000; (b) Damages awarded Plaintiff Rocio Martinez: $48,000; (c) Damages awarded Plaintiff Kevin Hebert: $83,000; (d) Damages awarded Pla intiff Charles Antuna: $96,000; (e) Damages awarded Plaintiff Casey Dowling: $120,000; (f) Damages awarded Plaintiff Robert Wheat: $120,000; (g) Damages awarded Plaintiff Louis Duran: $120,000; (h) Damages awarded Plaintiff Robert Tubbs: $73,000. (2) Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant Countyof Los Angeles, and these Plaintiffs shall take nothing on these claims by their Second Amended Complaint. (3) Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant County of Los Angeles, and Plaintiff Robert Tubbs shall take nothing on these claims by his Second Amended Complaint. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (jp)

JS-6
1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

Case No. CV 14-5600-MWF (PLAx)

9

CHARLES ANTUNA, et al.,
10
Plaintiffs,
vs.

JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL

11
12
13

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15
16

This action came on regularly for trial between November 11, 2015, and

17 December 15, 2015, in Courtroom 1600 of this United States District Court.
18 Plaintiffs were David Waters, Rocio Martinez, Kevin Hebert, Charles Antuna,
19 Casey Dowling, Robert Wheat, Louis Duran, and Robert Tubbs. Plaintiffs were
20 represented by Bradley Gage and Milad Sadr of the Law Offices of Goldberg &
21 Gage, as well as Stephen King of the Law Offices of Rodriguez & King.
22 Defendants the County of Los Angeles and Leroy Baca were represented by
23 attorneys George Peterson, Avi Burkwitz, and Sherry Gregorio of Peterson
24 Bradford Burkwitz LLP.
25

A jury of eight persons was regularly empaneled and sworn. Witnesses

26 were sworn and testified. After hearing the evidence and arguments of counsel,
27 the jury was duly instructed by the Court and the case was submitted to the jury.
28 The jury deliberated and thereafter returned verdicts as follows:
-1-

JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL

1 First Amendment Retaliation Claim: Asserted by All Plaintiffs
2

On each Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim, the jury returned a

3 verdict in favor of each Plaintiff and against Defendant Leroy Baca, awarding each
4 Plaintiff damages as follows:
5

1. Damages awarded Plaintiff David Waters:

6

Past and present non-economic damages: $80,000

7

Future non-economic damages: $3,000

8

Punitive damages: $45,000

9

TOTAL: $128,000

10

2. Damages awarded Plaintiff Rocio Martinez:

11

Past, present, and future medical damages: $3,000

12

Punitive damages: $45,000

13

TOTAL: $48,000

14

3. Damages awarded Plaintiff Kevin Hebert:

15

Past and present non-economic damages: $35,000

16

Future non-economic damages: $3,000

17

Punitive damages: $45,000

18

TOTAL: $83,000

19

4. Damages awarded Plaintiff Charles Antuna:

20

Past and present non-economic damages: $48,000

21

Future non-economic damages: $3,000

22

Punitive damages: $45,000

23

TOTAL: $96,000

24

5. Damages awarded Plaintiff Casey Dowling:

25

Past and present non-economic damages: $72,000

26

Future non-economic damages: $3,000

27

Punitive damages: $45,000

28

TOTAL: $120,000
-2-

JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL

1

6. Damages awarded Plaintiff Robert Wheat:

2

Past and present non-economic damages: $72,000

3

Future non-economic damages: $3,000

4

Punitive damages: $45,000

5

TOTAL: $120,000

6

7. Damages awarded Plaintiff Louis Duran:

7

Past and present non-economic damages: $72,000

8

Future non-economic damages: $3,000

9

Punitive damages: $45,000

10
11

TOTAL: $120,000
8. Damages awarded Plaintiff Robert Tubbs:

12

Past and present non-economic damages: $25,000

13

Future non-economic damages: $3,000

14

Punitive damages: $45,000

15

TOTAL: $73,000

16 Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (“POBRA”) Claims:
17 Asserted by All Plaintiffs but Rocio Martinez
18

On Plaintiffs David Waters, Kevin Hebert, Charles Antuna, Casey Dowling,

19 Robert Wheat, Louis Duran, and Robert Tubbs’ POBRA claims, the jury returned a
20 verdict in favor of Defendant County of Los Angeles.
21 Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) Retaliation and Failure to
22 Protect Claims: Asserted by Robert Tubbs
23

On Plaintiff Robert Tubbs’ FEHA retaliation and failure to protect claims,

24 the jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendant County of Los Angeles.
25

Now, therefore, pursuant to Rules 54 and 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil

26 Procedure, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that
27 final judgment in this action be entered as follows:
28
-3-

JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL

1

1.

On the claims for First Amendment retaliation: Judgment is entered in

2

favor of each Plaintiff and against Defendant Leroy Baca as follows, as

3

well as costs and attorney’s fees as provided by law:

4

a. Damages awarded Plaintiff David Waters: $128,000

5

b. Damages awarded Plaintiff Rocio Martinez: $48,000

6

c. Damages awarded Plaintiff Kevin Hebert: $83,000

7

d. Damages awarded Plaintiff Charles Antuna: $96,000

8

e. Damages awarded Plaintiff Casey Dowling: $120,000

9

f. Damages awarded Plaintiff Robert Wheat: $120,000

10

g. Damages awarded Plaintiff Louis Duran: $120,000

11

h. Damages awarded Plaintiff Robert Tubbs: $73,000

12

2.

On Plaintiffs David Waters, Kevin Hebert, Charles Antuna, Casey

13

Dowling, Robert Wheat, Louis Duran, and Robert Tubbs’s claim for

14

POBRA violations: Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant County

15

of Los Angeles, and these Plaintiffs shall take nothing on these claims

16

by their Second Amended Complaint.

17

3.

On Plaintiff Robert Tubbs’ claims for FEHA retaliation and failure to

18

protect: Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant County of Los

19

Angeles, and Plaintiff Robert Tubbs shall take nothing on these claims

20

by his Second Amended Complaint.

21
22
23 Dated: December 21, 2015

_______________________________
MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
-4-

JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL