Baldasano v. County of San Benito et al
Filing
155
ORDER ALLOWING NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES CLAIM ON BEHALF OF JUSTIN BALDASANO re 142 . Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on 7/9/2018. (tlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/9/2018)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
NANCY MARTINEZ,
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Case No. 15-cv-00331-JST
v.
COUNTY OF SAN BENITO, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER ALLOWING NON-ECONOMIC
DAMAGES CLAIM ON BEHALF OF
JUSTIN BALDASANO
Re: ECF No. 142
12
13
The parties dispute whether Justin Baldasano’s claim for non-economic damages survived
14
his death. ECF No. 142. The Court issued a text order indicating that it would allow that claim to
15
proceed, ECF No. 146, and now issues this order to explain the reasoning behind that decision.
16
California Code of Civil Procedure section 377.34 “does not allow a decedent’s estate to
17
recover for the decedent’s pre-death pain and suffering. Because federal law is silent on the
18
measure of damages in § 1983 actions, California’s disallowance of pre-death pain and suffering
19
damages governs unless it is inconsistent with the policies of § 1983.” Chaudhry v. City of Los
20
Angeles, 751 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 2014) (citations omitted). The Ninth Circuit has held that
21
“[s]ection 377.34 . . . does not apply to § 1983 claims where the decedent’s death was caused by
22
the violation of federal law.” Id. at 1105.
23
In this case, the Court has granted summary judgment to Defendants on Plaintiff’s
24
wrongful death cause of action. ECF No. 107 at 15-16. Baldasano’s death was therefore, as a
25
matter of law, not caused by any alleged violation of federal law. Chaudhry left open the question
26
of whether pre-death pain and suffering damages are available in these circumstances: “In logical
27
terms, it is a fallacy to infer the inverse of a conditional from the conditional.” VMG Salsoul, LLC
28
v. Ciccone, 824 F.3d 871, 884 (9th Cir. 2016) (explaining that “even though it is true that, ‘if the
1
recording consists entirely of independent sounds, then the copyright does not extend to it,’ that
2
statement does not necessarily mean that ‘if the recording does not consist entirely of independent
3
sounds, then the copyright does extend to it.’”). Thus, Chaudhry’s holding ‒ that if the decedent’s
4
death is caused by a violation of federal law, then section 377.34 does not apply ‒ does not mean
5
that if the decedent’s death is not caused by a violation of federal law, then section 377.34 does
6
apply.
Defendants rely on Robertson v. Wegmann, in which the Supreme Court held that a
7
8
Louisiana law under which a decedent’s tort claim “would survive only in favor of a spouse,
9
children, parents, or siblings” was not inconsistent with federal law when the decedent’s death
“was not caused by the deprivation of rights for which he sued under § 1983, and Louisiana law
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
provides for the survival of most tort actions.” 436 U.S. 584, 587, 594 (1978). But this Court
12
agrees with other courts that have distinguished section 377.34 or similar statutes that preclude all
13
recovery for pre-death pain and suffering.1 E.g., Erickson v. Camarillo, No. 14-01942-PHX-JAT,
14
2017 WL 2335659, at *3-8 (D. Ariz. May 30, 2017); Williams v. City of Oakland, 915 F. Supp.
15
1074, 1076-80 (N.D. Cal. 1996).
Plaintiff Nancy Martinez may recover non-economic damages on behalf of Justin
16
17
Baldasano.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
Dated: July 9, 2018
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Defendants cite a single case that applied section 377.34 to bar pre-death pain and suffering
where “plaintiffs have not alleged facts sufficient to show that [the defendant] caused [the
decedent’s] death by some violation of federal law.” Ward v. County of Mendocino, No. 17-cv0911-PJH, 2017 WL 4949003, at *8 n.1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2017) (cited in ECF No. 142 at 4).
The Court is not persuaded by this summary conclusion contained in a footnote, in part because it
relies on Chaudhry’s holding to support its inverse proposition.
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?