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