Fermin Vincent Valenzuela v. City of Anaheim et al

Filing 383

JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT by Judge Cormac J. Carney. Plaintiffs Vincent Valenzuela and Ximena Valenzuela shall recover from Defendants City of Anaheim, Officer Woojin Jun, Officer Daniel Wolfe and Sergeant Daniel Gonzalez, jointly and severally, the total sum of $13,200,000, costs in this action, and statutory attorney fees to be determined by the Court. Plaintiffs Vincent Valenzuela and Ximena Valenzuela, as successors in interest to Fermin Vincent Valenzuela Junior, shall recov er from Defendants City of Anaheim, Officer Woojin Jun, Officer Daniel Wolfe and Sergeant Daniel Gonzalez, jointly and severally, the total sum of $9,600,000, and costs in this action, to be determined by the Court. Plaintiff Vincent Valenzuela shall also recover from Defendants City of Anaheim, Officer Woojin Jun, Officer Daniel Wolfe and Sergeant Daniel Gonzalez, jointly and severally, the sum of $1,800,000, and costs in this action, to be determined by the Court. (SEE JUDGMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS) (yl)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SOUTHERN DIVISION

11
12

FERMIN VINCENT VALENZUELA,

13

Plaintiff,

14
15
16

v.
CITY OF ANAHEIM, et al.,

17

Defendants.

18
19
20
21
22

VINCENT VALENZUELA and
XIMENA VALENZUELA by and
through their guardian PATRICIA
GONZALEZ,

23

Plaintiffs,

24
25
26

v.
CITY OF ANAHEIM, et al.,

27
28

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
-1-

Case No.: SACV 17-00278-CJC (DFMx),
consolidated with
SACV 17-02094-CJC (DFMx)

JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT

1
2
3

This action came on regularly for trial on November 12, 2019 in Courtroom 7C of
the United States District Court, Central District of California before the Court and a jury,
the Honorable Judge Cormac J. Carney presiding.

4
5
6
7

A jury of eight persons was regularly empaneled and sworn. Witnesses were
sworn and testified. After hearing the evidence and arguments of counsel, the jury was
duly instructed by the Court and the case was submitted to the jury. The jury deliberated

8
9
10

and thereafter returned a verdict on Phase I on November 18, 2019, and on Phase II on
November 20, 2019 as follows:

11

PHASE I VERDICT

12
13

Question 1: Did Officer Woojin Jun or Officer Daniel Wolfe use excessive or

14

unreasonable force against Fermin Vincent Valenzuela Junior in violation of his

15
16
17
18

constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment?
Officer Woojin Jun

___X__ Yes.

_____No.

Officer Daniel Wolfe

___X__ Yes.

_____No.

19
20
21

Question 2: Is Sergeant Daniel Gonzalez liable as a supervisory defendant for the

22

unlawful actions of Officer Woojin Jun or Officer Daniel Wolfe?

23
24

__X__ Yes.

25
26
27
28
-2-

_____No.

1
2
3

Question 3: Is the City of Anaheim liable for the actions of any of its defendant police
officers based on an unlawful official policy, practice, or custom of the Anaheim Police
Department?

4

__X__ Yes.

5

_____No.

6
7

Question 4: Is the City of Anaheim liable for the actions of any of its defendant police

8
9

officers based on the Anaheim Police Department’s failure to train?
_____ Yes.

10

___X__No.

11
12
13

Question 5: Did any of the defendant police officers act with a purpose to harm

14

unrelated to legitimate law enforcement objectives in violation of Plaintiffs’ substantive

15
16

due process rights to familial relations under the Fourteenth Amendment?

17

Officer Woojin Jun

_____ Yes.

___X__No.

18

Officer Daniel Wolfe

_____ Yes.

___X__No.

19

Sergeant Daniel Gonzalez

_____ Yes.

___X__No.

20
21
22
23
24
25

Question 6: Did any officer use unreasonable force and commit battery under state law?
Officer Woojin Jun

___X__ Yes.

_____No.

Officer Daniel Wolfe
Sergeant Daniel Gonzalez

___X__ Yes.
___X__ Yes.

_____No.
_____No.

26
27
28
-3-

1
2

Question 7: Was any officer’s unreasonable force and battery a substantial factor in
causing Fermin Vincent Valenzuela Junior’s death?

3

Officer Woojin Jun

6

_____No.

___X__ Yes.

_____No.

Sergeant Daniel Gonzalez

5

___X__ Yes.

Officer Daniel Wolfe

4

___X__ Yes.

_____No.

7
8

Question 8: Was any officer negligent under state law?

9
10

Officer Woojin Jun

___X__ Yes.

_____No.

11

Officer Daniel Wolfe
Sergeant Daniel Gonzalez

___X__ Yes.
___X__ Yes.

_____No.
_____No.

12
13
14
15

Question 9: Was any officer’s negligence a substantial factor in causing Fermin Vincent
Valenzuela Junior’s death?

16
17

Officer Woojin Jun

___X__ Yes.

_____No.

18

Officer Daniel Wolfe

___X__ Yes.

_____No.

19

Sergeant Daniel Gonzalez

___X__ Yes.

_____No.

20
21
22

Question 10: Was Fermin Vincent Valenzuela Junior also negligent during the incident

23

in question?

24

___X__ Yes.

_____No.

25
26

Question 11: Was Fermin Vincent Valenzuela Junior’s negligence a substantial factor in

27

causing his death?

28

___X__ Yes.
-4-

_____No.

1
2
3

Question 12: What percentage of fault do you assign for the negligence?
Officer Woojin Jun, Officer Daniel Wolfe,

___85____%

and/or Sergeant Daniel Gonzalez

4
5
6

Fermin Vincent Valenzuela Junior

___15____%

7
8
9
10

Question 13: Did any of the defendant police officers violate Fermin Vincent Valenzuela
Junior’s rights under California Civil Code § 52.1?

11
12
13

Officer Woojin Jun

___X__ Yes.

_____No.

Officer Daniel Wolfe
Sergeant Daniel Gonzalez

___X__ Yes.
___X__ Yes.

_____No.
_____No.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

PHASE II VERDICT
Question 1: What are Fermin Vincent Valenzuela Junior’s survival damages for his loss
of life and for his pre-death pain and suffering?
Loss of Life:

$___3.6 Million____________

Pre-death pain and suffering

$___6 Million______________

23
24
25
26
27
28

Question 2: What are Vincent Valenzuela’s damages for the past and future loss of
Fermin Vincent Valenzuela Junior’s love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance,
protection, affection, society, moral support, training, and guidance?
$___1.8 Million____________
-5-

1
2
3

Question 3: What are Ximena Valenzuela’s damages for the past and future loss of
Fermin Vincent Valenzuela Junior’s love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance,
protection, affection, society, moral support, training, and guidance?

4

$___1.8 Million____________

5
6
7

BASED UPON THE FOREGOING, IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED THAT:

8
9

1. Plaintiffs Vincent Valenzuela and Ximena Valenzuela shall recover from

10
11

Defendants City of Anaheim, Officer Woojin Jun, Officer Daniel Wolfe and

12

Sergeant Daniel Gonzalez, jointly and severally, the total sum of $13,200,000,

13

costs in this action, and statutory attorney fees to be determined by the Court. This

14
15
16
17

amount is broken down as follows:
a. Plaintiffs Vincent Valenzuela and Ximena Valenzuela, as successors in
interest to Fermin Vincent Valenzuela Junior, shall recover from Defendants

18
19
20
21

City of Anaheim, Officer Woojin Jun, Officer Daniel Wolfe and Sergeant
Daniel Gonzalez, jointly and severally, the total sum of $9,600,000, and
costs in this action, to be determined by the Court.

22
23
24
25

b. Plaintiff Vincent Valenzuela shall also recover from Defendants City of
Anaheim, Officer Woojin Jun, Officer Daniel Wolfe and Sergeant Daniel
Gonzalez, jointly and severally, the sum of $1,800,000, and costs in this

26
27

action, to be determined by the Court.

28
-6-

c. Plaintiff Ximena Valenzuela shall also recover from Defendants City of

1

Anaheim, Officer Woojin Jun, Officer Daniel Wolfe and Sergeant Daniel

2
3

Gonzalez, jointly and severally, the sum of $1,800,000, and costs in this

4

action, to be determined by the Court.

5
6
7

2. In addition to the foregoing, and as the prevailing parties on their Fourth
Amendment Claim, their Monell Claim and their Bane Act Claim, Plaintiffs are

8
9
10
11

entitled to recover statutory attorney fees and applicable costs, to be determined by
the Court.
3. Plaintiffs Vincent Valenzuela and Ximena Valenzuela shall recover post-judgment

12
13

interest on all of the above sums at the rate of 1.60% from the date of this

14

Judgment, or $578.63 per day, for the first year, and compounded annually

15
16

thereafter, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961.

17
18
19
20

DATED:

December 4, 2019
__________________________________
CORMAC J. CARNEY

21
22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
-7-