Jill Randall v. County of Orange et al

Filing 97

JUDGMENT by Judge Cormac J. Carney. Pursuant to the jury's verdict 92 finding in favor of Defendants City of Huntington Beach and Stan Watanabe, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that final judgment in this action be entered. Defendants shall recover costs of suit as provided by law. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (nbo)

1
2
3

JS-6

4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SANTA ANA

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

) Case No. SACV11-01740 CJC (MLGx)
)
)
) JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL BY
Plaintiff,
) JURY
vs.
)
COUNTY OF ORANGE; MYESHIA )
HAMMOND, in her official capacity; )
)
JAKE MICHEL, in his official capacity, )
SUSAN HORN, in her official capacity, )
)
IRMA SALAZAR-ALLEN, in her
)
official capacity, MEI PAUW, in his
)
)
official capacity, CITY OF
)
HUNTINGTON BEACH; STAN
)
WATANABE, in his official capacity, )
)
and DOES 1 – 10 Inclusive,
)
)
)
Defendants.
JILL RANDALL, an individual,

23
24
25
26
27
28

This action came on for trial on February 10, 2015, in Courtroom 9B of the
United States District Court for the Central District of California, the Honorable
Cormac J. Carney, United States District Judge, presiding.
Plaintiff Jill Randall was represented by Robert R. Powell and Shawn A.
McMillan.
Defendants, City of Huntington Beach and Stan Watanabe were represented
by Sr. Deputy City Attorney Neal Moore of the City of Huntington Beach.
1

1

A jury of eight persons was regularly empanelled and sworn. Witnesses were

2

sworn and testified. After the presentation of the evidence, the instructions of the

3

Court, and the arguments of counsel, the case was submitted to the jury. The jury

4

deliberated and, on February 13, 2015, returned to Court with its verdict as follows:

5

We, the jury in the above-captioned matter, answer the questions submitted to

6
7

us as follows:
Question 1: Has Ms. Randall proven by a preponderance of the evidence her

8

§ 1983 claim that Officer Watanabe violated her Fourteenth Amendment right of

9

familial association?

10

Answer: YES ____

NO_X_

11
12
13

If you answered "Yes" to Question No. 1, please answer Question 2. If you
answered "No" to Question No. 1, please sign and return this verdict.

14
15

Question 2: Has Ms. Randall proven by a preponderance of the evidence her

16

§ 1983 claim against the City of Huntington Beach based on a failure to train

17

Officer Watanabe?

18

Answer: YES ____

NO____

19
20

After answering Question No. 2, please proceed to answer Question No. 3.

21
22
23
24

Question 3: What is the total amount of damages Ms. Randall suffered as a
result of the conduct of these Defendants?

$ ______________

25
26

After answering Question No. 3, please proceed to answer Question No. 4.

27
28

2

1

Question 4: Did Ms. Randall prove by a preponderance of the evidence that

2

Officer Watanabe engaged in the conduct with malice, oppression, or in reckless

3

disregard of Ms. Randall's constitutional rights?

4

Answer: YES ____

NO____

5
6

Please sign and date this form, then return it to the Court.

7
8

DATED: February 13, 2015

9
_____/s/____________________________

10

PRESIDING JUROR

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Pursuant to the jury’s verdict finding in favor of Defendants City of
Huntington Beach and Stan Watanabe,
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that
final judgment in this action be entered as follows:
Defendants City of Huntington Beach and Stan Watanabe shall have

18

judgment entered in their favor on Plaintiff’s claims for violations of Plaintiff’s

19

Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and Plaintiff shall take

20

nothing; and,

21
22

Defendants City of Huntington Beach and Stan Watanabe shall recover costs
of suit as provided by law.

23
24
25
26

DATED: February 18, 2015
___________________________
Honorable Cormac J. Carney
U.S. District Court Judge

27
28

3