Reanna Hermosillo et al v. The County of San Bernardino et al

Filing 238

JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL VERDICT 228 by Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, that Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CITY OF VICTORVILLE, DETECTIVE BRAD BONNET; DEPUTY PAUL CAS AS, DEPUTY JASON FORTIER, DEPUTY DAVID PAGE, SERGEANT JOHN WALKER, and COMMANDER LIEUTENANT HECTOR GOMEZ and as against Plaintiffs REANNA HERMOSILLO, as guardian ad litem to C.E.L.R., a minor, individually and as successor-in-interest; B.I.R., a mino r, individually and as successor-in-interest; D.R.R., a minor, individually and as successor-in-interest; and J.I.H., a minor, individually and as successor-in-interest to decedent ENRIQUE CARLOS RODARTE, and plaintiffs shall recover nothing. Defendants are entitled to costs pursuant to a Cost Memorandum to be filed by Defendants. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (ad)

1 Eugene P. Ramirez (State Bar No. 134865)
Kayleigh A. McGuinness (State Bar No. 306442)
JS-6
2 Martin D. Holly (State Bar No. 201421)
MANNING & KASS
3 ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP
801 S. Figueroa St, 15th Floor
4 Los Angeles, California 90017-3012
Telephone: [phone]
5 Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
6
Attorneys for Defendants, COUNTY OF
7 SAN BERNARDINO, CITY OF
VICTORVILLE, DETECTIVE BRAD
8 BONNET; DEPUTY PAUL CASAS,
DEPUTY JASON FORTIER, DEPUTY
9 DAVID PAGE, SERGEANT JOHN
WALKER, COMMANDER
10 LIEUTENANT HECTOR GOMEZ,
CAPTAIN GREGG HERBERT,
11 SHERIFF JOHN MCMAHON
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, EASTERN DIVISION

14
Case No. 5:15-EDCV-00033-DTB

15 REANNA HERMOSILLO, as guardian
ad litem to C.E.L.R., a minor,
16 individually and as successor-ininterest; B.I.R., a minor, individually
17 and as successor-in-interest; D.R.R., a
minor, individually and as successor-in18 interest; and J.I.H., a minor,
individually and as successor-in-interest
19 to decedent ENRIQUE CARLOS
RODARTE,
20
Plaintiffs,
21
v.
22
THE COUNTY OF SAN
23 BERNARDINO, THE CITY
OF VICTORVILLE, and as DOE 124 DETECTIVE BRAD BONNET,
individually and in his capacity as a
25 detective in the San Bernardino County
Sheriff's Department; DOE 2-DEPUTY
26 PAUL CASAS, individually and in his
capacity as a deputy in the San
27 Bernardino County Sheriff's
Department; DOE 3- DEPUTY JASON
28 FORTIER, individually and in his

[Assigned to Hon. David T. Bristow]
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT ON
SPECIAL VERDICT

H:\0MJDAP_CONSENT\HERMOSILLO v. COUNTY EDCV15-33\HERMOSILLO.ED15CV33DTB.JUDGMENT.docx

1

1 capacity as a deputy in the San
Bernardino County Sheriff's
2 Department; DOE 4-DEPUTY
DAVID PAGE, individually and in his
3 capacity as a deputy in the San
Bernardino County Sheriff's
4 Department; DOE 5- SERGEANT
JOHN WALKER, individually and in
5 his capacity as a Sergeant in the San
Bernardino County Sheriff's
6 Department; DOE 6 - COMMANDER
LIEUTENANT HECTOR GOMEZ,
7 individually and in his capacity as a
Lieutenant and Commander of the
8 S.E.D. in the San Bernardino County
Sheriff's Department; DOE 7 9 CAPTAIN GREGG HERBERT,
individually and in his capacity as a
10 Captain in the San Bernardino County
Sheriff's Department; DOE 811 SHERIFF JOHN MCMAHON,
individually and in his capacity as
12 Sheriff of the County of San Bernardino
and DOES 9-10, inclusive, individually.
13
Defendants.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

This action came on regularly for trial on March 13, 2017, in Courtroom 3 of
the United States District Court, before the Honorable David T. Bristow, United States
Magistrate Judge. Plaintiffs were represented by the Law Offices of Mark R.
Pachowicz, by Mark R. Pachowicz and Jennie Hendrickson. Defendants were
represented By Manning & Kass Ellrod, Ramirez, Tester, LLP, by Eugene P.
Ramirez, Martin D. Holly, and Kayleigh A. McGuiness.
A jury of 8 persons was impaneled and sworn. Trial proceedings took place on
March 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 27. On March 27, 2017, the jury
returned with its special verdict consisting of questions submitted to the jury and the
answers given thereto by the jury. The jury found in favor of all Defendants on all
claims as follows:
"We the jury now reach our unanimous verdict on the following questions
submitted to us.
H:\0MJDAP_CONSENT\HERMOSILLO v. COUNTY EDCV15-33\HERMOSILLO.ED15CV33DTB.JUDGMENT.docx

2

1

Answer the questions below unless the directions advise you not to answer a

2 specific question.
3

We, the jury in the above-entitled case, find as follows:

4 Please answer separately as to EACH defendant.
5 EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE FORCE
6 Question 1: Did plaintiffs prove any of the following defendants, while acting under
7 color of law, used excessive or unreasonable force against decedent Enrique Carlos
8 Rodarte?
9

Bonnet

YES

NO X

10

Casas

YES

NO X

11

Fortier

YES

NO X

12

Page

YES

NO X

13

Walker

YES

NO X

14 If you answered `yes " as to any of the defendants in Question 1, please proceed to
15 Question 2. Otherwise, please proceed to Question 3.
16
17 Please answer separately as to EACH defendant.
18 Question 2: Was the use of excessive or unreasonable force by any defendant, the
19 moving cause of injury, damage, loss, or harm to Enrique Carlos Rodarte?
20

Bonnet

YES

NO X

21

Casas

YES

NO X

22

Fortier

YES

NO X

23

Page

YES

NO X

24

Walker

YES

NO X

25 Please proceed to Question 3.
26
27 SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
28 Question 3: Did plaintiffs prove that the conduct of any of the individual deputies
H:\0MJDAP_CONSENT\HERMOSILLO v. COUNTY EDCV15-33\HERMOSILLO.ED15CV33DTB.JUDGMENT.docx

3

1 denied due process to plaintiffs?
2

Bonnet

YES

NO X

3

Casas

YES

NO X

4

Fortier

YES

NO X

5

Page

YES

NO X

6

Walker

YES

NO X

7 Please proceed to Question 4.
8
9 NEGLIGENCE
10 Question 4: Did plaintiffs prove the following defendant(s) negligently caused the
11 death of Enrique Carlos Rodarte? Please answer separately as to each defendant.
12

Bonnet

YES

NO X

13

Casas

YES

NO X

14

Fortier

YES

NO X

15

Page

YES

NO X

16

Walker

YES

NO X

17

Gomez

YES

NO X

18
19 If you answered "yes" as to any defendant in Question 4, please proceed to Question
20 5. If you answered "no" as to all defendants in Question 4, please proceed to Question
21 7.
22
23 Question 5: As to any defendant to which you responded "yes" in Question 4, did
24 plaintiffs prove that the following defendant(s)'conduct was a substantial factor in
25 negligently causing the death of Enrique Carlos Rodarte?
26

Bonnet

YES

NO

27

Casas

YES

NO

28

Fortier

YES

NO

H:\0MJDAP_CONSENT\HERMOSILLO v. COUNTY EDCV15-33\HERMOSILLO.ED15CV33DTB.JUDGMENT.docx

4

1

Page

YES

NO

2

Walker

YES

NO

3

Gomez

YES

NO

4
5 Please proceed to Question 6.
6
7 Question 6: As to any defendant (s) to which you answered "yes" in Questions 4 and
8 5, what is the percentage of each person's negligence? Only place a percentage amount
9 by the names of any defendant found to be negligent in Question 5. If you find that
10 Enrique Carlos Rodarte contributed to his death, what was his percentage
11 of responsibility? The final total must equal 100%.
12

Bonnet

______%

13

Casas

______%

14

Fortier

______%

15

Page

______%

16

Walker

______%

17

Gomez

______%

18

Rodarte

______%

19

Total:

100%

20 Please proceed to Question 7.
21 Question 7: If you answered "yes" to any defendant in response to Questions 2 or 3,
22 what is the amount of decedent's damages for the loss of enjoyment of life
23 experienced, the mental, physical, and emotional pain and suffering experienced prior
24 to death, and the nature and extent of his injuries; and plaintiffs' damages for the loss
25 of the decedent's love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection,
26 affection, society, and moral support?
27

$

0

28 Please proceed to Question 8.
H:\0MJDAP_CONSENT\HERMOSILLO v. COUNTY EDCV15-33\HERMOSILLO.ED15CV33DTB.JUDGMENT.docx

5

1
2 Question 8: If you answered "yes" to any defendant in response to Question 5, what
3 is the total amount of damages incurred by each plaintiff as a result of defendant(s)'
4 conduct for the loss of the decedent's love companionship, comfort, care, assistance,
5 protection, affection, society, moral support; and the loss of the decedent's training
6 and guidance?
7

C.E.L.R.

$

0

8

B.I.R.

$

0

9

D.R.R.

$

0

10

J.I.H.

$

0

11

TOTAL

$

0

12 Please proceed to Question 9.
13
14 Question 9: As to the excessive or unreasonable force claim or the substantive due
15 process claim, was the conduct of any of the following defendants malicious,
16 oppressive, or in reckless disregard of Enrique Carlos Rodarte's rights? Please answer
17 separately as to each defendant.
18

Bonnet

YES

NO X

19

Casas

YES

NO X

20

Fortier

YES

NO X

21

Page

YES

NO X

22

Walker

YES

NO X

23
24 Please proceed to Question 10:
25
26 Question 10: As to the negligence claim, was the conduct of any of the following
27 defendants malicious, oppressive, or in reckless disregard of plaintiffs 'rights? Please
28 answer separately as to each defendant.
H:\0MJDAP_CONSENT\HERMOSILLO v. COUNTY EDCV15-33\HERMOSILLO.ED15CV33DTB.JUDGMENT.docx

6

1

Bonnet

YES

NO X

2

Casas

YES

NO X

3

Fortier

YES

NO X

4

Page

YES

NO X

5

Walker

YES

NO X

6

Gomez

YES

NO X

7
8 Please date, sign and return this form.
9 Dated: 3/27/17

Signed: ____/s/_____________
Jury Foreperson"

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

WHEREFORE, and by virtue of the law, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED AND DECREED, that Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CITY OF VICTORVILLE, DETECTIVE
BRAD BONNET; DEPUTY PAUL CASAS, DEPUTY JASON FORTIER,
DEPUTY DAVID PAGE, SERGEANT JOHN WALKER, and COMMANDER
LIEUTENANT

HECTOR

GOMEZ

and

as

against

Plaintiffs

REANNA

HERMOSILLO, as guardian ad litem to C.E.L.R., a minor, individually and as
successor-in-interest; B.I.R., a minor, individually and as successor-in-interest;
D.R.R., a minor, individually and as successor-in-interest; and J.I.H., a minor,
individually and as successor-in-interest to decedent ENRIQUE CARLOS
RODARTE, and plaintiffs shall recover nothing.
Defendants are entitled to costs pursuant to a Cost Memorandum to be filed by
Defendants.

25
26
27

DATED: April 19, 2017

__________________________________
David T. Bristow
United States Magistrate Judge

28
H:\0MJDAP_CONSENT\HERMOSILLO v. COUNTY EDCV15-33\HERMOSILLO.ED15CV33DTB.JUDGMENT.docx

7