Morales et al v. County of Mendocino et al

Filing 187

ORDER Apportioning Damages. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 4/27/2018. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/27/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LINDA MORALES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 16-cv-02429-EMC
ORDER APPORTIONING DAMAGES

v.
JANNEE DALE, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

In this § 1983 case, the jury found for Plaintiffs Linda Morales and K.B. and against

14

Defendants Jannee Dale and Lisa Allison. The jury awarded Morales $59,000 and awarded K.B.

15

$29,500. The question of apportionment of these damages between the two Defendants is now

16

before the Court. See Docket No. 184.

17
18

I.

LEGAL BACKGROUND

Apportionment is guided by “common law principles of torts in general, and the

19

Restatement in particular.” United States v. Burlington, 520 F.3d 918, 935 (9th Cir. 2008), rev’d

20

on other grounds, 556 U.S. 599 (2009). Under the principles set forth in the Restatement

21

(Second) of Torts, § 433A, “harm may be apportioned when „there exists a reasonable basis for

22

divisibility‟ of a single harm or when several „distinct harms‟ are present.” Id. at 936 (quoting

23

United States v. Hercules, 247 F.3d 706, 717 (8th Cir. 2001)). The “reasonable basis” must be

24

“founded in record evidence.” Id. at 936-37.

25

Where “the concurrent actions of all defendants” was necessary to inflict the harm, the

26

harm is “clearly indivisible,” and damages should not be apportioned. Hazle v. Crofoot, 727 F.3d

27

983, 995 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Rudelson v. United States, 602 F.2d 1326, 1332 (9th Cir. 1979)

28

(an injury is indivisible when, “[h]ad any one of the defendants exercised due care, none of the

1

injuries would have occurred”)).
II.

2
3

APPLICATION

The jury found that Dale violated Morales and K.B.‟s rights on August 4 by keeping them

4

separated. The jury further found that Allison violated Morales and K.B.‟s rights by failing to

5

return K.B. to Morales when Morales requested that she do so. The verdict did not specify when

6

Morales made that request. However, Morales testified that she spoke with Allison on August 13,

7

2015, and demanded K.B. back. Given this testimony and given that the jury appears to have

8

credited Morales‟s testimony regarding her interactions with Allison, there is a “reasonable basis”

9

to apportion damages based on the August 13 date.

10

K.B.‟s detention from August 4 to August 13 was caused purely by Dale. Therefore, Dale

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

is individually liable for the proportion of the damages represented by that time period. But

12

damages from August 13 to the end of the detention on September 28 are indivisible, because the

13

unlawful behavior of both Dale and Allison was required to inflict the harm. If Dale had not

14

coerced Morales, or if Allison had heeded Morales‟s request, K.B. and Morales would not have

15

suffered that period of harm.

16

August 4 to September 28 was 56 days. Dale is individually liable for August 4 to August

17

12, which was 9 days, or 16.07% of the detention. Dale and Allison are jointly and severally

18

liable for the remaining 47 days, or 83.93% of the detention.

19
20
21

22
23

Morales was awarded $59,000. Dale is therefore individually liable for $9,481.30 of that
amount. Dale and Allison are jointly and severally liable for the remaining $49,518.70.
K.B. was awarded $29,500. Dale is individually liable for $4,740.65 of that amount. Dale
and Allison are jointly and severally liable for the remaining $24,759.35.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

Dated: April 27, 2018

26
27
28

______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge
2