Torres v. Saba et al

Filing 268

ORDER REFERRING PARTIES TO A DECEMBER 6, 2023 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE WITH MAGISTGRATE JUDGE SPERO AND SETTING FURTHER STATUS CONFERENCE FOR DECEMBER 15, 2023 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 11/16/2023)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MARIO TORRES,
Plaintiff,

8

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

v.

10

MIKE HANSEN and DANIEL SMITH,

11

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-06607-SI
ORDER REFERRING PARTIES TO A
DECEMBER 6, 2023 SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE WITH MAGISTRATE
JUDGE SPERO AND SETTING
FURTHER STATUS CONFERENCE
FOR DECEMBER 15, 2023

12
On November 15, 2023, after a three day trial and two days of deliberations, the jury reached
13

a verdict as to some of plaintiff’s claims but deadlocked on one claim as to one defendant. The jury

14
reached the following verdict: (1) on Claim 1, Warrantless Entry of Apartment, the jury found in
15
favor of defendants Hansen and Smith; (2) on Claim 2, Excessive Force Prior to Handcuffing, the
16
jury found in favor of defendant Smith and could not reach a verdict as to defendant Hansen; and
17
(3) on Claim 3, Excessive Force After Handcuffing, the jury found in favor of defendant Hansen.
18
In response to questioning from the Court, the jury stated that they could not reach agreement on
19
the deadlocked claim and that further deliberations on Claim 2 as to defendant Hansen would be
20
fruitless. The jury also wrote the following on the verdict form:
21
22
23
24

We the jury would like it to be noted for the record that the events of July 4, 2012,
could have been better with different actions from both parties. The defendants had
the ability to verbalize directions and warnings to de-escalate the situation. The
plaintiff had the ability to let the officers do their job as community caregivers.
Verdict Form at 5, Dkt. No. 262.

25

The Court has researched the question of whether the Court can accept a partial verdict and

26

declare a mistrial on the deadlocked claim. Based upon the Court’s review of the case law, the

27

Court concludes that it has the discretion to do so when accepting a partial verdict would not risk an

28

inconsistent verdict on the deadlocked claim. See Sanchez v. City of Chicago, 880 F.3d 349, 361

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

(7th Cir. 2018) (holding district court did not abuse its discretion to accept partial verdict in favor

2

of one officer on claims of excessive force and improper arrest where jury deadlocked on claims of

3

excessive force against another officer because “a finding concerning whether Garcia had probable

4

cause to arrest Sanchez and whether Garcia used excessive force in making that arrest would have

5

no effect on whether Felix used excessive force on Sanchez in the jail”); Pumphrey v. K.W.

6

Thompson Tool Co., 62 F.3d 1128, 1134 (9th Cir. 1995) (noting “whether to limit issues in new trial

7

is within trial court’s discretion”) (citing d’Hedouville v. Pioneer Hotel Co., 552 F.2d 886, 897 (9th

8

Cir. 1977)); see also Erhart v. BofI Fed. Bank, No. 15-CV-02287-BAS-NLS, 2022 WL 3160730, at

9

*2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2022) (“When a jury reaches an agreement on some but not all issues, the

10

court has discretion to accept the partial verdict, order a limited retrial, or retry all the issues.”); Opal

11

Labs Inc. v. Sprinklr, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-01192-HZ, 2022 WL 526167, at *1 (D. Or. Jan. 7, 2022)

12

(considering whether partial retrial was appropriate after jury deadlocked on some but not all

13

claims); Kerman v. City of New York, 261 F.3d 229, 242 n.9 (2d Cir. 2001); Robertson Oil Co. v.

14

Phillips Petroleum Co., 871 F.2d 1368, 1375 n.5 (8th Cir. 1989); Bridges v. Chemrex Specialty

15

Coatings, Inc., 704 F.2d 175, 180 (5th Cir. 1983).

16

Here, the Court is inclined to find that it is appropriate to accept the jury’s partial verdict

17

because a jury could reach different – and not inconsistent – verdicts about plaintiff’s claims of

18

excessive force prior to handcuffing against defendants Smith and Hansen (Claim 2), and Claims 1

19

and 3 are independent of Claim 2. However, at this time the Court reserves judgment on that

20

question and finds that it is appropriate to REFER the parties to a settlement conference with

21

Magistrate Judge Spero to take place on December 6, 2023 by zoom. Judge Spero’s chambers will

22

contact the parties to schedule the conference. The Court also sets a further status conference with

23

this Court for December 15, 202 at 3:00 p.m.

24
25
26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 16, 2023

______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

28
2