Terence B. Tekoh v. County of Los Angeles et al

Filing 193

JUDGMENT by Judge George H. Wu, in favor of Carlos Vega, Dennis Stangeland against Terence B. Tekoh (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (mrgo)

1

JS-6

6

RICKEY IVIE (S.B.N.: 76864)
[e-mail]
ANTONIO K. KIZZIE (S.B.N.: 279719)
[e-mail]
IVIE, McNEILL & WYATT
444 S. Flower Street, 18th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2919
[phone]/[phone] FAX

7

Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.

2
3
4
5

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TERENCE B. TEKOH,

12
13

Plaintiff,
vs.

14

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a
municipal entity, DEPUTY CARLOS
16 VEGA, an individual and DOES 1
17 through 10, inclusive
15

18

Defendants

19
20
21

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: CV 16-7297-GW(SKx)
[Hon. George H. Wu, Courtroom 9D]
JUDGMENT

Complaint Filed: October 25, 2016
FSC Date: August 31, 2017
Trial Date: October 10, 2017
Closing Date: October 17, 2017

22
23
24
25
26

1.

This case came on regularly for trial on October 10, 2017 to October

17, 2017 in Department 9D of this Court, the Honorable George H. Wu presiding;
the Plaintiff appearing by Attorney John Burton from LAW OFFICE OF JOHN
BURTON and Maria Cavalluzzi of CAVALLUZZI & CAVALLUZZI, and

27
28

1
JUDGMENT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Defendants appearing by Attorneys Rickey Ivie and Antonio K. Kizzie from IVIE,
MCNEILL & WYATT.
2.

A jury of 8 persons was regularly impaneled and placed under oath.

Witnesses were placed under oath and testified. After hearing the evidence and
arguments of counsel, the jury was duly instructed by the Court and the cause was
submitted to the jury with directions to return a verdict on special issues. The jury
deliberated and thereafter returned into court with its special verdict consisting of
the special issues submitted to the jury and the answers given thereto by the jury,
which said verdict was in words and figures as follows, to wit:
“WE, THE JURY in the above-entitled action, unanimously find as follows
on the questions submitted to us:

12
13 QUESTION # 1
14

Did Plaintiff prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant Carlos

15

Vega violated Plaintiff’s rights by arresting Plaintiff without probable cause?

16

Answer:

17

Yes_____

No__X___

If you answered “YES” to Question # 1, please answer Question # 2. If you

18 answered “NO” skip to Question # 3.
19 QUESTION # 3
20

Did Plaintiff prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant Vega

21

violated Plaintiff’s rights by deliberately fabricating evidence or using techniques that

22

were so coercive and abusive that he knew, or was deliberately indifferent, that those

23

techniques would yield false information that was used to criminally charge or

24

prosecute Plaintiff?

25

Answer:

Yes_____

No__X___

26
27
28

2
JUDGMENT

1
2

QUESTION #5
Did Plaintiff prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant

3

Stangeland violated Plaintiff’s rights by deliberately fabricating evidence or using

4

techniques that were so coercive and abusive that he knew, or was deliberately

5

indifferent, that those techniques would yield false information that was used to

6

criminally charge or prosecute Plaintiff?

7

Answer:

8
9

Yes_____

No__X___

It appearing by reason of said special verdict that: Defendant SGT.
CARLOS VEGA and SGT. DENNIS STANGELAND are entitled to judgment

10 against the plaintiff TERENCE B. TEKOH.
11

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

12 Plaintiff TERENCE B. TEKOH shall recover nothing by reason of the complaint,
13 and that defendants shall recover costs from said plaintiff TERENCE B. TEKOH
14 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1). The cost bill will be
15 submitted directly to this Court for its review and determination.
16
17
18

Dated: November 7, 2017

______________________________________
GEORGE H. WU , U.S. District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3
JUDGMENT