The Estate of Mohammed Shah et al v. City of Hayward et al

Filing 106

ORDER. In thinking about the final instructions and the verdict form, claims one and three are the same claim. The court asks the parties to confer about whether it makes sense to proceed only one of the claims, either by a stipulation that the pl aintiffs will do so or by a stipulated amended complaint. The court attaches a revised preliminary instruction 1.2 (because a version of it will serve as an introduction to the section 1983 claims). The chronology for the jury in the final instructions and the verdict form should be the Fourth Amendment claim, the Fourteenth Amendment claim, and the state claims. It might make sense to conform the pleadings to that approach. (Beeler, Laurel) (Filed on 9/17/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16

1.2 CLAIMS AND DEFENSES
To help you follow the evidence, I will give you a brief summary of the positions of the parties
at trial. This is a civil lawsuit. On October 5, 2012, Mohammed Shah was shot and killed by City
of Hayward Police Officer Allen Neula while Mr. Shah was sitting in the driver’s seat of a parked
Honda that Officer Neula’s onboard computer indicated was a reported stolen car. The plaintiffs
are the estate of Mohammed Shaw, the mother of Mohammad Shah (Janifer Shah), and the minor
son of Mr. Shah (C.E.W. through his guardian ad litem Valerie Weaver). The plaintiffs bring four
claims against Allen Neula.
One, the estate of Mohammed Shaw (through his son C.E.W.) claims that when Allen Neula
shot Mohammed Shah, he used excessive force, which violated Mohammed Shah’s rights under
the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.
Two, C.E.W. and Janifer Shah claim that when Allen Neula shot Mohammed Shah, he
deprived them of their substantive-due-process interest in a familial relationship under the
Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
Three, the estate of Mohammed Shaw (through his son C.E.W.) claims that when Allen Neula
shot Mohammed Shah, he negligently caused the wrongful death of Mohammed Shah.
Four, the estate of Mohammed Shaw (through his son C.E.W.) claims that Allen Neula used
threats, intimidation, and coercion to interfere with Mohammed Shah’s right to be free from
excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment and the laws of the state of California and
therefore violated California’s Bane Act.
The plaintiffs have the burden of proving these claims.
The defendant denies these claims and contends that Allen Neula’s use of force was
objectively reasonable under the circumstances, his actions were not negligent, and he did not
interfere with the exercise of rights by threats, intimidation, or coercion.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Proposed Preliminary Jury Instructions (No. 3:13-cv-04516-LB)