Gennady Dolzhenico et al v. City of Los Angeles, California et al

Filing 93

JUDGMENT by Judge Andre Birotte Jr.: By reason of dismissals and the special verdict, Defendants MICHAEL HENDERSON, DAVID BLUESTEIN, CHARLIE BECK and CITY OF LOS ANGELES are entitled to judgment against Plaintiffs GENNADY DOLZHENICO and ZINAIDA DOLZH ENICO. Therefore, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Plaintiffs GENNADY DOLZHENICO and ZINAIDA DOLZHENICO have and recover nothing by reason of each and all his and her claims as set forth in the Complaint against Defendants MICHAEL HENDERSON, DAVID BLUESTEIN, CHARLIE BECK and CITY OF LOS ANGELES 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. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (gk)

1

JS-6

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
CASE NO. CV15-04581 AB (SSx)

11 GENNADY DOLZHENICO and
ZINAIDA DOLZHENICO,
12
Plaintiffs,
13
14

JUDGMENT

vs.

15 CITY OF LOS ANGELES,
CALIFORNIA; CHIEF CHARLIE
16 BECK; SERGEANT MICHAEL
HENDERSON; SERGEANT DAVID
17 BLUESTEIN, and DOES 1-8,
18

Trial Date: August 15, 2017

Defendants.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

JUDGMENT
On August 15, 2017, the foregoing matter was called for trial in Department
“7B” of the United States District Court, Central District of California, Central
Division. The Honorable Andre Birotte, Jr., was presiding. Plaintiffs GENNADY
DOLZHENICO and ZINAIDA DOLZHENICO were present and represented by
Ronald M. Tym. Defendants MICHAEL HENDERSON and DAVID BLUESTEIN
were present and represented by Deputy City Attorney Ty A. Ford.

27
28
1

1

Prior to the commencement of trial, the Plaintiffs dismissed the third and

2 fourth causes of action. The second cause of action was bifurcated into a “Monell
3 phase,” which would be heard if Plaintiffs prevailed during the first phase,
4 addressing liability and compensatory damages only.
Following pre-trial proceedings on August 15, 2016, a panel of jurors was
5
6 called that same day. A jury of eight persons was regularly impaneled on August
7 15, 2017.
8

Evidence was presented on August 15, 2017 through August 17, 2017.

9 Witnesses were sworn and testified. The parties rested. Jury instructions were read
10 and the case was argued on August 18, 2017. The case was submitted to the jury on
11 August 18, 2017.
On August 18, 2017, the jury UNANIMOUSLY returned verdicts as follows:
12
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 QUESTIONS REGARDING THE CLAIMS OF PLAINITFF GENNADY
DOLZHENICO
19
20 QUESTION NO. 1:
21

Has Gennady Dolzhenico proven by a preponderance of the evidence that he
22 had a property interest in the Calvert Street house?
23

YES_______

NO

✓____

24

(If you answered “Yes” to Question No. 1, please proceed to Question No. 2.
25 If you answered “No” to Question No. 1, please proceed to Question No. 7.)
26
27 ///
28
2

1 QUESTION NO. 2:
2

Has Gennady Dolzhenico proven by a preponderance of the evidence that any
3 of the following Defendant Officers deprived him of that property interest?
4 MICHAEL HENDERSON
5

DAVID BLUESTEIN

Yes______

No______

Yes______

No______

6
7

(If you answered “Yes” to Question No. 2, please proceed to Question No. 3.
If you answered “No” to Question No. 2, please proceed to Question No. 7.)

8
9 QUESTION NO. 3:
10

Has Gennady Dolzhenico proven by a preponderance of the evidence that he
11 was not given a notice or hearing before an eviction?
12

YES_______

NO_______

13

(If you answered “Yes” to Question No. 3, please proceed to Question No. 4.
14 If you answered “No” to Question No. 3, please proceed to Question No. 7.)
15
QUESTION NO. 4:
16
(Answer only as to the Defendant Officer(s) you answered “yes” to in
17
Question No. 2.)
18
If you answered “Yes” to Questions No. 1, 2, and 3, do you find that Plaintiff
19
Gennady Dolzhenico has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the
20 Defendant officer’s conduct was the cause of injury to Plaintiff Gennady
21 Dolzhenico?
22

(Answer (check “Yes” or “No”) following the name of only the Defendant
23 that you answered “Yes” in Question No. 2.
24 MICHAEL HENDERSON
25
DAVID BLUESTEIN
26

Yes______

No______

Yes______

No______

27
28
3

(If you answered “yes” to any of the above defendant officers, please proceed
to Question No. 5. If you answered “no” as to the above defendant officers, skip
2 Questions No. 5 and No. 6, and proceed to Question No. 7.)
1

3

DAMAGES
4 (If you gave any “Yes” responses to Question No. 4, please answer the following
5 Questions. Otherwise, please proceed to Question 7.)
6 QUESTION NO. 5:
7

What is the total amount of damages suffered by the Plaintiff Gennady Dolzhenico?

8
9 $____________________.
10 (Please proceed to Question No. 6.)
11
QUESTION NO. 6:
12
Has Gennady Dolzhenico proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
13
any of the following defendant officers acted with malice, oppression or in reckless
14 disregard of the rights of Gennady Dolzhenico?
15
Answer (check “Yes” or “No”) following the name of each Defendant:
16
17 (Continued on Next Page)
18 MICHAEL HENDERSON
Yes______
No______
19
DAVID BLUESTEIN
Yes______
No______
20
21 QUESTIONS REGARDING THE CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFF ZINAIDA
DOLZHENICO
22
23 QUESTION NO. 7:
24

Has Zinaida Dolzhenico proven by a preponderance of the evidence that she
25 had a property interest in the Calvert Street house?
26

YES_______

NO

✓____

27
28
4

1 (If you answered “Yes” to Question No. 7, please proceed to Question No. 8. If you
answered “No” to Question No. 7, please stop, answer no further questions, and sign
2 and date the verdict form.)
3

QUESTION NO. 8:

4
5

Has Zinaida Dolzhenico proven by a preponderance of the evidence that any
of the following Defendant Officers deprived her of that property interest?

6
7 MICHAEL HENDERSON

Yes______

No______

8 DAVID BLUESTEIN

Yes______

No______

9

(If you answered “Yes” to Question No. 8, please proceed to Question No. 9.
10 If you answered “No” to Question No. 8, please stop, answer no further questions,
11 and sign and date the verdict form.)
12 QUESTION NO. 9:
13
Has Zinaida Dolzhenico proven by a preponderance of the evidence that she
14 was not given a notice or hearing before an eviction?
15
YES_______
NO_______
16
(If you answered “Yes” to Question No. 9, please proceed to Question No. 10.
17
If you answered “No” to Question No. 9, please stop, answer no further questions,
18 and sign and date the verdict form.)
19
QUESTION NO. 10:
20
(Answer only as to the Defendant Officer(s) you answered “yes” to in
21
Question No. 8.)
22
If you answered “Yes” to Questions No. 7, 8, and 9, do you find that Plaintiff
23
Zinaida Dolzhenico has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the
24 Defendant officer’s conduct was the cause of injury to Plaintiff Zinaida Dolzhenico?
25
(Answer (check “Yes” or “No”) following the name of only the Defendant
26 that you answered “Yes” in Question No. 8.)
27
MICHAEL HENDERSON
Yes______
No______
28
5

1 DAVID BLUESTEIN

Yes______

No______

2 DAMAGES
3

(If you gave any “Yes” responses to Question No. 10, please answer the following
4 Questions. Otherwise, please stop, answer no further questions, and sign and date
5 the verdict form.)
6 QUESTION NO. 11:
7

What is the total amount of damages suffered by the Plaintiff Zinaida Dolzhenico?

8
9 $____________________.
10 (Please proceed to Question No. 12.)
11
QUESTION NO. 12:
12
Has Zinaida Dolzhenico proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that any
13
of the following defendant officers acted with malice, oppression or in reckless
14 disregard of the rights of Zinaida Dolzhenico?
15
(Answer (check “Yes” or “No”) following the name of each Defendant)
16
Yes______
No______
17 MICHAEL HENDERSON
18 DAVID BLUESTEIN
Yes______
No______
19
Please sign and date the verdict form and return it to the clerk of the Court.
20
21
22 Date: August 18, 2017
23
24
25
26
27
28

_________/ s /___________ _
FOREPERSON OF THE JURY

By reason of dismissals and the special verdict, Defendants MICHAEL
HENDERSON, DAVID BLUESTEIN, CHARLIE BECK and CITY OF LOS
ANGELES are entitled to judgment against Plaintiffs GENNADY DOLZHENICO
and ZINAIDA DOLZHENICO.

6

1

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

2 Plaintiffs GENNADY DOLZHENICO and ZINAIDA DOLZHENICO have and
3 recover nothing by reason of each and all his and her claims as set forth in the
4 Complaint against Defendants MICHAEL HENDERSON, DAVID BLUESTEIN,
5 CHARLIE BECK and CITY OF LOS ANGELES and that Defendants shall recover
6 their costs in accordance with Local Rule 54.
7
8 JUDGMENT IS HEREBY ENTERED IN FAVOR OF ALL DEFENDANTS ON
9 ALL CLAIMS.
10
11 IT IS SO ORDERED.
12

DATED: September 5, 2017

13
14
15
16

__________________________________________
HONORABLE ANDRÉ BIROTTE JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7