Nekesha Robertson et al v. County of Los Angeles et al

Filing 169

JUDGMENT by Judge Marsha J. Pechman, (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (rfi)

JS-6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
NEKESHA ROBERTSON,
) CASE NO.: 2:16-CV-02761 MJP
individually and as Successor in
) (SKx)
Interest to NICHOLAS ROBERTSON, )
deceased; N.Z.R., a minor,
)
JUDGMENT
individually, by and through her
)
Guardian Ad Litem, PRECIOUS
)
BRADFORD; N.P.R., a minor,
)
individually, by and through her
)
Guardian Ad Litem, PRECIOUS
)
)
BRADFORD; N.D.R., a minor,
)
individually, by and through his
)
Guardian Ad Litem, PRECIOUS
)
BRADFORD; CHARLES
)
ROBERTSON, individually, and
)
ANTHONETT ROBERTSON,
)
individually,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., )
)
)
Defendants.
)

28
1

1

This action came on regularly for trial on November 28, 2017, in Courtroom

2

5B of the United States District Court, Central District of California, Western

3

Division, the Honorable Marsha J. Pechman, presiding. Plaintiffs Nekesha

4

Robertson, Anthonett Robertson, Charles Robertson, N.Z.R., N.P.R., and N.D.R.

5

were represented by Brian T. Dunn and Megan R. Gyongyos of The Cochran Firm

6

California. Plaintiffs N.Z.R., N.P.R., and N.D.R. are minors and their interests in

7

this action were represented by their Guardian Ad Litem, Precious Bradford.

8

Defendants County of Los Angeles, Deputy Richard Ochoa-Garcia, and Deputy

9

Jasen Tapia were represented by Antonio K. Kizzie and Rickey Ivie of Ivie,

10
11

McNeill & Wyatt.
A jury of eight persons was regularly empaneled and sworn. During the

12

course of the trial, two of the eight jurors were excused by the Court. Witnesses

13

were sworn and testified. After hearing the evidence, the jury was duly instructed

14

by the Court and the Cause was submitted to the jury. The jury deliberated and

15

thereafter returned into Court with a special verdict as follows:

16
17
18

WE, THE JURY, in the above-entitled action now reach our unanimous
verdict on the following questions submitted to us:

19
20

Claim One – Excessive Force

21
22

Question 1:

23

Have the plaintiffs proven by a preponderance of the evidence that any of

24

the following defendants violated Nicholas Robertson’s constitutional rights by

25

using excessive force?

26

Deputy Richard Ochoa-Garcia YES

NO X

27

Deputy Jasen Tapia

NO X

YES

28
2

1
2

If you answered “Yes” to this question as to any of the defendants, proceed to

3

Question No. 2. If you answered “No” to this question as to all of the defendants,

4

proceed to Question No. 6.

5
6
7
8

Question 2:
What is the total amount of damages to Nicholas Robertson that you find the
plaintiffs have proven by a preponderance of the evidence?

9
10
11

$_________________________________

12
13

Proceed to Question 3.

14
15
16
17

Claim Two – Deprivation of Familial Association
Question 3:
Have the plaintiffs proven by a preponderance of the evidence that any of

18

the following defendants deprived any of the Plaintiffs of their familial association

19

with Nicholas Robertson?

20

Deputy Richard Ochoa-Garcia YES

NO

21

Deputy Jasen Tapia

NO

YES

22
23

If you answered “Yes” to this question as to any of the defendants, proceed to

24

Question No. 4. If you answered “No” to this question as to all of the defendants,

25

proceed to Question No. 5.

26
27
28
3

1
2
3

Question 4:
Have the plaintiffs proven by a preponderance of the evidence that any of

4

the following individuals were deprived of their familial association with Nicholas

5

Robertson by any of the defendants?

6

Anthonette Robertson

YES

NO

7

Charles Robertson

YES

NO

8

Nekesha Robertson

YES

NO

9

N.Z.R.

YES

NO

10

N.P.R.

YES

NO

11

N.D.R.

YES

NO

12
13

Proceed to Question 5.

14
15
16
17

Claim Three – Wrongful Death Based on Battery
Question 5:
Have the plaintiffs proven by a preponderance of the evidence that any of

18

the following defendants harmed Nicholas Robertson by using unreasonable force

19

against him?

20

Deputy Richard Ochoa-Garcia YES

NO

21

Deputy Jasen Tapia

NO

YES

22
23

Proceed to Question 6.

24
25
26
27
28
4

1

Claim Four – Wrongful Death Based on Negligence

2
3
4
5

Question 6:
Have the plaintiffs proven by a preponderance of the evidence that any of
the following defendants acted negligently?

6

Deputy Richard Ochoa-Garcia YES X

NO

7

Deputy Jasen Tapia

NO

YES X

8
9

If you answered “Yes” to this question as to any of the defendants, proceed to

10

Question No. 7. If you answered “No” to this question as to all of the defendants,

11

proceed to Question No. 8.

12
13
14

Question No. 7:
In determining whether Nicholas Robertson was contributorily negligent and

15

using 100% as the total, what percentage of responsibility for Nicholas

16

Robertson’s death do you assign to the following persons:

17
18

Nicholas Robertson

19

Deputy Richard Ochoa-Garcia 33.33%

20

Deputy Jasen Tapia

33.33%
33.33%

21
22

Please proceed to Question No. 8.

23
24
25
26
27
28
5

1

Damages for Claims Two, Three, and Four

2
3
4

Question 8:
If you answered “Yes” in response to Question No. 4 as to Nekesha

5

Robertson, N.Z.R., N.P.R., and/or N.D.R., Question No. 5, and/or Question No. 6,

6

what is the total amount of non-economic damages proven by a preponderance of

7

the evidence?

8
9

Nekesha Robertson

$0

N.Z.R.

$1,200,000.00 (one million two hundred thousand)

N.P.R.

$1,200,000.00 (one million two hundred thousand)

N.D.R.

$1,200,000.00 (one million two hundred thousand)

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

DATED: January 10, 2018.

19
20
21

A

22

Marsha J. Pechman
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
6