Randy Conan, et al v. City of Fontana

Filing 195

JUDGMENT by Magistrate Judge Kenly Kiya Kato. IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows: That Defendants Joshua Patty, the City of Fontana, Kurtis Schlotterbeck, Adam Clabaugh, Matthew Roth, Steven Bechtold, and Bradley Guith have Judgment enter ed in their favor, and that Plaintiffs Randy Conan and Xylina Conan take nothing by way of their operative Complaint against these Defendants; That this matter be, and hereby is, dismissed as to Defendants Joshua Patty, the City of Fontana, Kurtis Schlotterbeck, Adam Clabaugh, Matthew Roth, Steven Bechtold, and Bradley Guith with prejudice; and That Defendants recover their costs of suit from Plaintiffs in accordance with applicable law. (mt)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

CENTRAL DISTRICT COURT OF CALIFORNIA – EASTERN DIVISION

11

RANDY CONAN; XYLINA CONAN,

CASE NO. 5:16-cv-01261 - KK

12

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

Plaintiffs,

13
14

Trial: October 24, 2017

vs.

Complaint filed: June 10, 2016

15
16 JOSHUA PATTY, et al.,
17

Defendants.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

On January 30, 2017, Plaintiffs Randy Conan and Xylina Conan filed the operative
Third Amended Complaint against Defendants City of Fontana, Joshua Patty, Kurtis
Schlotterbeck, Adam Clabaugh, Matthew Roth, Steven Bechtold, and Bradley Guith.
Dkt. No. 40.
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
1
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

1

On September 5, 2017, and by way of stipulation of the parties, Plaintiff

2 Randy Conan voluntarily dismissed his Second Claim for Relief (“Unreasonable
3 Search and Seizure—Denial of Medical Care (42 U.S.C. § 1983)”). Dkt. No. 114.
4

On October 3, 2017, former Defendants Kurtis Schlotterbeck, Adam

5 Clabaugh, Matthew Roth, Steven Bechtold, and Bradley Guith were ordered
6 dismissed from this action. Dkt. No. 156.
7

On October 6, 2017, the Court ordered bifurcation of trial such that Plaintiff

8 Randy Conan’s Third, Fourth, and Fifth Claims for Relief for “Municipal Liability”
9 against the City of Fontana, Plaintiff Randy Conan’s compensatory damages,
10 amount of punitive damages, and Plaintiff Xylina Conan’s Eighth Claim for Relief
11 for “Loss of Consortium” would be tried only if Plaintiff Randy Conan achieved a
12 unanimous verdict in his favor on his First Claim for Relief for “Excessive Force,”
13 Sixth Claim for Relief for “Battery,” and/or Seventh Claim for Relief for
14 “Negligence.” Dkt. No. 158.
15

Phase I of this bifurcated action came on regularly for trial on October 24,

16 2017, in Courtroom 4 of the United States District Court, Central District of
17 California, Eastern Division, located at 3470 Twelfth Street, Riverside, California,
18 the Hon. Kenly Kiya Kato, presiding. Plaintiff Randy Conan appeared by attorneys
19 Marjorie Barrios and Alfred R. Hernandez. Defendants Joshua Patty and the City of
20 Fontana appeared by attorneys S. Frank Harrell and Jesse K. Cox. A jury of eight
21 persons was regularly impaneled and sworn. Pursuant to this Court’s order of
22 October 6, 2017, Dkt. No. 158, the case proceeded with Phase I of trial limited to
23 Plaintiff Randy Conan’s First Claim for Relief for “Excessive Force” against Joshua
24 Patty, Plaintiff Randy Conan’s Sixth Claim for Relief for “Battery” against Joshua
25 Patty, and Plaintiff Randy Conan’s Seventh Claim for Relief for “Negligence”
26 against Joshua Patty and the City of Fontana.
27

After hearing all of the evidence, the Court duly instructed the jury, and the

28 cause was submitted to the jury. On October 30, 2017, the jury returned into Court
2

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

1 with a unanimous Special Verdict in favor of Defendants Joshua Patty and the City
2 of Fontana as follows:
3
4 QUESTION 1:
5

Did Defendant Patty use excessive or unreasonable force against Plaintiff

6 Randy Conan?
7

_____________ YES

________X________ NO

8 If you answered “Yes” to Question 1, please answer Question 2.
9 If you answer “No” to Question 1, please proceed to Question 4.
10
11 QUESTION 2:
12

Was the use of excessive or unreasonable force by Defendant Patty a cause of

13 Plaintiff Randy Conan’s harm?
14

_____________ YES

________________ NO

15 If you answered “Yes” to Question 2, please answer Question 3.
16 If you answer “No” to Question 2, please proceed to Question 4.
17
18 QUESTION 3:
19

Did Defendant Patty act with malice, oppression, or in reckless disregard of

20 Plaintiff Randy Conan’s Fourth Amendment rights?
21

_____________ YES

________________ NO

22 Please proceed to Question 4.
23 / / /
24 / / /
25 / / /
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /
3

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

1 QUESTION 4:
2

Was Defendant Patty negligent in his conduct towards Plaintiff Randy

3 Conan?
4

_____________ YES

________X________ NO

5 If you answered “Yes” to Question 4, please answer Question 5.
6 If you answered “No” to Question 4, please sign, date, and return the verdict form.
7
8 QUESTION 5:
9

Was the negligence of Defendant Patty a cause of Plaintiff Randy Conan’s

10 harm?
11

_____________ YES

________________ NO

12 If you answered “Yes” to Question 5, please answer Question 6.
13 If you answered “No” to Question 5, please sign, date, and return the verdict form.
14
15 QUESTION 6:
16

Was Plaintiff Randy Conan negligent?

17

_____________ YES

________________ NO

18 If you answered “Yes” to Question 6, please answer Question 7.
19 If you answered “No” to Question 6, please sign, date, and return the verdict form.
20
21 QUESTION 7:
22
23

Was Plaintiff Randy Conan’s negligence a cause of his harm?
_____________ YES

________________ NO

24 If you answered “Yes” to Question 7, please answer Question 8.
25 If you answered “No” to Question 7, please sign, date, and return the verdict form.
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /
4

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

1 QUESTION 8:
2

Assuming that 100% represents the total negligence of all individuals who

3 caused Plaintiff Randy Conan’s harm, what percentage of negligence do you assign
4 to the following?
5

Defendant Patty

_______________%

6

Plaintiff Randy Conan

_______________%

7

Total

100%

8
9 Please sign and date the verdict form and return it to the Court.
10
11 Date: October 30, 2017
12

Jury Foreperson

13
14

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as

15 follows:
16

That Defendants Joshua Patty, the City of Fontana, Kurtis Schlotterbeck,

17 Adam Clabaugh, Matthew Roth, Steven Bechtold, and Bradley Guith have
18 Judgment entered in their favor, and that Plaintiffs Randy Conan and Xylina Conan
19 take nothing by way of their operative Complaint against these Defendants;
20 / / /
21 / / /
22 / / /
23 / / /
24 / / /
25 / / /
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /
5

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

1

That this matter be, and hereby is, dismissed as to Defendants Joshua Patty,

2 the City of Fontana, Kurtis Schlotterbeck, Adam Clabaugh, Matthew Roth, Steven
3 Bechtold, and Bradley Guith with prejudice; and
4

That Defendants recover their costs of suit from Plaintiffs in accordance with

5 applicable law.
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9 DATED:

November 20, 2017

10
11

HON. KENLY KIYA KATO
United States Magistrate Judge

12
13
14

4834-5793-6979, v. 1

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT