T.D.W. et al v. Riverside County et al

Filing 152

JUDGMENT by Judge Christina A. Snyder: JUDGMENT is entered in favor of defendants Armando Portales, Juvien Galzote, Isaac Perez, Andrew Sullivan, and the County of Riverside, and against Plaintiffs B.D.R. and K.W., together with costs of suit pursuant to a Memorandum of Costs to be filed. (gk)

John M. Porter, SBN 62427 Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith LLP 2 650 E. Hospitality Lane, Suite 600 San Bernardino, CA 92408 3 Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
1 4 5

Christopher D. Lockwood, SBN 110853 Arias & Lockwood 225 W. Hospitality Lane, Suite 314 6 San Bernardino, CA 92408 Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Attorneys for defendants County of Riverside, Armando Portales, Juvien Galzote, Isaac Perez, and Andrew Sullivan DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ED

T.D.W. et al, Plaintiffs v. RIVERSIDE COUNTY et al, Defendants

) CASE NO. CV 08-232 CAS (JWJ) ) ) ) (PROPOSED) JUDGMENT ) ) ) ) ) )

The above-entitled matter came on regularly for jury trial on September 22, 2009. Prior to trial, the court dismissed the case as to plaintiff T.D.W. without prejudice. At the start of trial, plaintiffs dismissed all claims based on state law. Dale K. Galipo and Andrew I. Roth appeared on behalf of plaintiffs B.D.R. and K.W. John M. Porter and Christopher D. Lockwood appeared on behalf of all defendants. The trial was bifurcated. Phase I addressed liability and potential entitlement to punitive damages. If liability was found in the first phase, Phase II would have addressed damages and potential liability of the County of Riverside.
1

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 28

A jury of 7 persons was impaneled. Opening statements were made. Witnesses testified and exhibits were admitted into evidence. Closing arguments were presented. The jury was given instructions and began its deliberations. On September 30, 2009 the jury returned a unanimous Special Verdict, which is quoted in relevant part: Question 1: Did plaintiffs prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Officers Armando Portales, Juvien Galzote, Isaac Perez, or Andrew Sullivan used excessive force against Keith Watkins? Answer: Armando Portales No Juvien Galzote Isaac Perez No No

Andrew Sullivan No Pursuant to the directions on the special verdict, the jury did not answer the rest of the questions on the special verdict form. As a result of the jury's verdict in Phase I, it was unnecessary to conduct the second phase of trial. JUDGMENT is therefore entered in favor of defendants Armando Portales, Juvien Galzote, Isaac Perez, Andrew Sullivan, and the County of Riverside, and against Plaintiffs B.D.R. and K.W., together with costs of suit pursuant to a Memorandum of Costs to be filed. DATED: October 15, 2009

United States District Court Judge

2

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 28

Prepared and Submitted By:

By Christopher D. Lockwood Attorneys for defendants

3