Torres v. Saba et al

Filing 291

ORDER DENYING POST-TRIAL MOTIONS; GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS; AND SCHEDULING MARCH 8, 2024 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE FOR TRIAL SETTING denying 275 Motion to Set Aside Verdict; denying 276 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law; denying 277 Motion to Amend/Correct ; ; granting 280 Motion. (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 2/9/2024)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
9
10
11

v.
MIKE HANSEN, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-06607-SI
ORDER DENYING POST-TRIAL
MOTIONS; GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR TRIAL
TRANSCRIPTS; AND SCHEDULING
MARCH 8, 2024 CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE FOR TRIAL SETTING

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Re: Dkt. Nos. 275-277, 280
12
13
14

The parties’ post-trial motions are scheduled for a hearing on March 8, 2024. Pursuant to

15

Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that the matters are suitable for resolution without

16

oral argument and VACATES the hearing. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the

17

motions, schedules a trial setting conference for March 8, 2024 at 3:00 p.m., and GRANTS Torres’

18

request for copies of the trial transcripts. The Clerk shall mail a copy of this order to Mr. Torres.

19
20

DISCUSSION

21

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

22

a verdict as to some of plaintiff Mario Torres’s claims but deadlocked on one claim as to one

23

defendant. The jury reached the following verdict: (1) on Claim 1, Warrantless Entry of Apartment,

24

the jury found in favor of defendants Hansen and Smith; (2) on Claim 2, Excessive Force Prior to

25

Handcuffing, the jury found in favor of defendant Smith and could not reach a verdict as to defendant

26

Hansen; and (3) on Claim 3, Excessive Force After Handcuffing, the jury found in favor of defendant

27

Hansen. The Court reserved judgment on whether it would accept a partial verdict and directed that

28

the parties engage in settlement negotiations. Magistrate Judge Spero held a settlement conference

1

and the case did not settle, and the parties then filed post-trial motions.

2

United States District Court
Northern District of California

3

I.

Torres’ Motion for a New Trial on All Claims

4

Torres contends that he is entitled to a new trial on all claims. Torres cites this Court’s

5

summary judgment order for the proposition that the Court has already found that his Fourth

6

Amendment rights have been violated. Torres also contends that the Court erred in providing a

7

“community caretaking” jury instruction regarding the Warrantless Entry of Apartment claim.

8

The Court concludes that Torres is not entitled to a new trial on all claims, and that the Court

9

can accept a partial verdict for the reasons stated in the Court’s November 16, 2023 order. The

10

Court’s summary judgment order did not hold that defendants had violated Torres’ Fourth

11

Amendment rights, but rather that there were factual disputes about those claims that needed to be

12

resolved at a trial. As to the challenged jury instruction, the Court finds that there was a factual and

13

legal basis for giving that instruction to the jury because the evidence at trial showed that defendants

14

responded to a report of a domestic disturbance and the 911 caller reported that the parties involved

15

had been fighting inside and outside of the apartment. See Espinosa v. City & County of San

16

Francisco, 598 F.3d 528, 534 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Under the emergency exception, an officer may

17

enter a home without a warrant to investigate an emergency that threatens life or limb if the officer

18

has objectively reasonable grounds to believe that an emergency exists and that his immediate

19

response is needed. . . This exception is derived from police officers’ community caretaking

20

function, allowing them to enter a home when an emergency which threatens physical harm is

21

presented.”).

22
23

II.

Defendants’ Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law

24

Defendants argue that the Court should enter judgment as a matter of law in favor of Hansen

25

on the deadlocked excessive force claim, Excessive Force Prior to Handcuffing. Defendants argue

26

that Hansen is entitled to qualified immunity because the testimony at trial showed that Hansen used

27

extremely limited force in aid of Smith when Torres grabbed for Smith’s baton. Mtn. at 8 (Dkt. No.

28

277). Defendants also argue under Rule 59(e) that Hansen has suffered a “manifest injustice”
2

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

because the jury concluded that Smith’s use of greater force on Torres was reasonable while the jury

2

deadlocked on whether Hansen’s “single impact with a flashlight to Mr. Torres’ leg” was excessive.

3

Id. at 12.

4

“A district court can grant a Rule 50(a) motion for judgment as a matter of law only if ‘there

5

is no legally sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue.’” Krechman v.

6

Cnty. of Riverside, 723 F.3d 1104, 1109–10 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Jorgensen v. Cassiday, 320

7

F.3d 906, 917 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court must “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the

8

nonmoving party . . . and draw all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor.” EEOC v. Go Daddy

9

Software, Inc., 581 F.3d 951, 961 (9th Cir. 2009) “[I]n entertaining a motion for judgment as a

10

matter of law, the court . . . may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence.” Reeves

11

v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000). The court “may not substitute its view

12

of the evidence for that of the jury.” Winarto v. Toshiba Am. Elecs. Components, Inc., 274 F.3d

13

1276, 1283 (9th Cir. 2001).

14

All of defendants’ arguments are predicated on accepting their version of events – in which

15

Smith was on Torres’ back attempting to subdue and handcuff him, Torres grabbed Smith’s baton

16

and Hansen acted to protect Smith, and Smith used more force than Hansen did – and require the

17

Court to disregard Torres’ trial testimony, which the Court cannot do. At trial, Torres testified that

18

after he and the officers entered the apartment, both officers started assaulting him and he fell to the

19

floor, at which point Officer Hansen got on top of Torres and straddled him and beat him on the

20

back of his head with his baton. Trial Transcript Vol. 2 at 45-46, 114. Torres testified that he reached

21

for Hansen’s baton – not Smith’s – to protect himself, and that Hansen used more force on him than

22

Smith did.

23

determinations and thus cannot accept defendants’ version of events as true. See Krechman, 723

24

F.3d at 1109-10 (reversing a district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law to defendants after

25

trial where “[h]aving admitted the testimony of Krechman’s experts, the judge was bound to take

26

their testimony as true for the purposes of considering whether to grant judgment as a matter of law.

27

The record shows that he did not do this but instead took the Defendants’ expert testimony as true.”).

28

For similar reasons, the Court cannot find that Hansen is entitled to relief under Rule 59

In reviewing defendants’ post-trial motion, the Court cannot make credibility

3

1

III.

For the reasons stated above (and because the parties have not reached a settlement), the

2
3
4
5
6

New Trial

Court concludes that there must be a second trial that is limited to Torres’ claim that Hansen used
excessive force on him in the apartment prior to handcuffing. At the conclusion of that trial, the
Court will enter judgment on all claims. The Court will hold a status conference on March 8, 2024
at 3:00 p.m. by zoom, and the parties shall be prepared to select a trial date at that conference.1

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

IV.

Torres’ Request for Trial Transcripts
Torres requests a copy of the trial transcripts to prepare for an appeal and a second trial.

Torres is proceeding in forma pauperis. The court reporter is directed to prepare a copy of
previously produced trial transcript at Dkt. Nos. 286-290 in this case on the following basis:
()

Ordinary (within 30 days @ $1.00 per page).

(X)

14-Day (within 14 days @ $1.00 per page).

( )

Expedited (within 7 days @ $1.00 per page).

( )

3-Day Transcript (within 3 days @ $1.20 per page).

( )

Daily (overnight @ $1.35 per page).

( )

Hourly (within 2 hours of receipt of the order @ $1.35 per page).

The Clerk is directed to pay said reporter the cost of copying the transcript at the rate
indicated above, and in accordance with the requirements of the Judicial Conference of the United
States, as set forth in the Guide to Judiciary Policies and Procedures.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

Dated: February 9, 2024

25

______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

26
27
28

1

The parties may waive their right to a jury trial if they wish.
4