Castellanos et al v. State of California et al

Filing 94

ORDER REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ON 66 Defendant's Third Motion in Limine to Apply Howell Decision re Damages. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on June 14, 2016. Supplemental Briefing due by 6/22/2016.(jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/14/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

EDIN S. CASTELLANOS,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 15-cv-00272-JSW
ORDER REQUIRING FURTHER
BRIEFING ON DEFENDANT'S
MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3

v.
JEREMY J. MAYA,

Re: Dkt. No. 66

Defendant.

12
13

Defendant has moved in limine to preclude expert testimony or other evidence regarding

14

the value of medical services above the amount actually paid by Plaintiff or on Plaintiff’s behalf.

15

In support of this motion, Defendant relies on Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc., 52

16

Cal. 4th 541 (2011). In Howell, the California Supreme Court held that the collateral source rule

17

“has no bearing on amounts that were included in a provider’s bill but for which the plaintiff never

18

incurred liability because the provider, by prior agreement, accepted a lesser amount as full

19

payment. Such sums are not damages the plaintiff would have otherwise collected from the

20

defendant.” Howell, 52 Cal. 4th at 548-49 (emphasis added); see also id. at 563-64 (noting that if

21

plaintiff did not incur full medical bill, “plaintiff could not recover it in damages for economic

22

loss,” and “collateral source doctrine does not address the amount of damages that a plaintiff can

23

recover in the first instance”). Defendant does not appear to dispute that the collateral source rule

24

would apply in cases brought pursuant to Section 1983. Rather, he appears to contend that Howell

25

limits the measure of damages in this case to medical expenses actually incurred by the plaintiff.

26

Cf. Hill v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 944 F. Supp. 2d 943, 963 (E.D. Cal. 2013) (“Howell plainly

27

establishes that the collateral source rule is a substantive rule of damages under California law.”)

28

(emphasis in original).

“[F]ede law is sil on the measure of d
eral
lent
m
damages in § 1983 action
ns.” Chaudh v. City of
hry
f

1
2

Los Angeles, 751 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 2014). Thus, Calif
s
h
fornia law w govern “u
will
unless it is

3

inc
consistent wi the polici of § 1983 Id. (citin 42 U.S.C. § 1988(a); R
ith
ies
3.”
ng
.
Robertson v Wegmann,
v.

4

436 U.S. 584, 589-90 (1978)).1
6
5
Althoug the Court is tentativel inclined to grant Defe
gh
t
ly
o
endant’s mot
tion in limin number
ne

5
6

one which may make this motion in lim moot, t Court fin that neith party has adequately
e,
y
mine
the
nds
her
y

7

add
dressed the issues of whe
i
ether the rule set forth in Howell, wh
n
hether categorized as a l
limitation on
n

8

dam
mages or as a state law application of the collate source ru would be inconsisten with
a
o
eral
ule
e
nt

9

Sec
ction “1983’ goals of co
’s
ompensation and deterre
n
ence.” Chau
udhry, 751 F
F.2d at 1103; see also
;
Gil v. Macieje
ll
ewski, 546 F. 557, 565 (8thc Cir. 2
.3d
5
2008) (findin that distri court corr
ng
ict
rectly

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

app
plied “comm law colla
mon
ateral source rule instead of” state ru and that “
e
d
ule
“federal law is neither
w

12

def
ficient nor un
nable to prov a suitab remedy” for an exces
vide
ble
ssive force c
claim).
Accord
dingly, the pa
arties shall su
ubmit simul
ltaneous supp
plemental br
riefs address
sing those

13
14

issu by no lat than June 22, 2016. The Court re
ues
ter
e
eserves rulin on Defendant’s motio in limine
ng
on

15

num
mber 3 pend
ding submiss
sion of those briefs.
IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.

16
17

Da
ated: June 14 2016
4,
__________
___________
__________
________
___
JEF
FFREY S. W
WHITE
Un
nited States D
District Judg
ge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1

27
28

In Chau
udhry, the Ninth Circuit held that “C
N
California’s p
prohibition a
against pre-d
death pain
and suffering damages limi recovery too severely to be consi
d
d
its
y
istent with § 1983’s dete
errence
pol
licy. [Califo
ornia Code of Civil Procedure 377.34 therefore d
o
4
does not app to § 1983 claims
ply
3
wh the dece
here
edent’s death was caused by the viola
h
d
ation of fede law.” Id at 1105.
eral
d.
2