Giuseppe Campanella, et al v. Lynette Longoria, et al

Filing 298

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 1/28/09. (rssec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/28/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 GIUSEPPE "NINO" CAMPANELLA, et al., v. Plaintiffs, NOS. C 04-4906 RS & C 05-1945 RS JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION *E-FILED 1/28/09*

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

JEFFERY LONGORIA, et al., Defendants. / These consolidated actions came before the Court for a trial by jury on January 5, 2009. The issues have been tried and the jury rendered its verdict on January 21, 2009. The parties stipulated prior to trial that ­ with the exception of the federal claims where Santa Clara County was not a defendant ­ the County would be liable under respondent superior to the extent that any individual defendant was liable. Before entry of verdict, some claims for relief were either voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs Nino Campanella and Lynette Campanella or the subject of the Court's ruling on defendants' motion for directed verdict under Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A. Case No. C 04-4906 - First Amended Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights. 1. First Claim for Relief against Defendants Cardenas, Longoria, Merino, and Davis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. Plaintiffs Nino and Lynette Campanella alleged violations of their civil right under the Fourth Amendment to be free from unreasonable searches. This was the only Section 1983 claim pursued by plaintiffs under this claim and the jury returned a verdict against 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

plaintiffs and in favor of all defendants on this claim. 2. Second Claim for Relief against Defendants Cardenas, Longoria, Merino, and Davis pursuant to California Civil Code § 52.1. Plaintiff Nino Campanella alleged a violation of Section 52.1. The jury returned a verdict against plaintiff Nino Campanella and in favor of all defendants on this claim. Plaintiff Lynette Campanella voluntarily dismissed her Section 52.1 claim before the claim was submitted to the jury. 3. Third Claim for Relief against Defendants Cardenas, Longoria, Merino, and Davis for Assault and Battery under California state law. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this claim before submission to the jury. 4. Fourth Claim for Relief against Defendants Cardenas, Longoria, Merino, and Davis for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress under California state law. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this claim before it was submitted to the jury. 5. Fifth Claim for Relief against Defendants Cardenas, Longoria, Merino, and Davis for False Imprisonment under California state law. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this claim before it was submitted to the jury. 6. Sixth Claim for Relief against Defendants Cardenas, Longoria, Merino, and Davis for Negligence under California state law. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this claim before it was submitted to the jury. 7. Seventh Claim for Relief against Defendants Cardenas, Longoria, Merino, and Davis for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress under California state law. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this claim before it was submitted to the jury.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

B.

Case No. C 05-1945 First Amended Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights. 1. First Claim for Relief against Defendants Oberlander, Longoria, Merino, and

Davis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. Plaintiffs Nino and Lynette Campanella alleged violations of their civil rights under the Fourth Amendment to be free from unreasonable search, unreasonable seizure (probable cause), and unreasonable seizure (excessive force). Plaintiffs' unreasonable search claim was submitted to the jury. The jury returned a verdict against plaintiffs and in favor of all 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

defendants on this claim. The Court entered a directed verdict on plaintiff Lynette Campanella's unreasonable seizure (probable cause) claim on January 20, 2009, before the claim was submitted to the jury. Plaintiff Nino Campanella's unreasonable seizure (probable cause) claim was submitted to the jury and the jury returned a verdict against him on this claim and in favor of all defendants. Plaintiff Lynette Campanella voluntarily dismissed her unreasonable seizure (excessive force) claim before the matter was submitted to the jury. Plaintiff Nino Campanella voluntarily dismissed defendant Longoria from his unreasonable seizure (excessive force) claim before the matter was submitted to the jury. Plaintiff Nino Campanella's unreasonable seizure (excessive force) claim, as to the remaining defendants, was submitted to the jury which returned a verdict against him on this claim and in favor of all defendants. 2. Second Claim for Relief against Defendant County pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. The Court dismissed this claim in an Order filed September 20, 2005. 3. Third Claim for Relief against Defendants, Oberlander, Longoria, Merino, and Davis pursuant to California Civil Code § 52.1. Plaintiffs alleged a violation of Section 52.1. The jury returned a verdict against plaintiffs and in favor of all defendants on this claim. 4. Fourth Claim for Relief against Defendants Oberlander, Longoria, Merino, and Davis for Assault and Battery under California state law. Plaintiff Lynette Campanella voluntarily dismissed this claim before it was submitted to the jury. Plaintiff Nino Campanella voluntarily dismissed defendant Longoria before the matter was submitted to the jury. As to the remaining defendants, plaintiff Nino Campanella's claim was submitted to the jury which returned a verdict against him and in favor of all defendants. 5. Fifth Claim for Relief against Defendants Oberlander, Longoria, Merino, and Davis for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress under California state law. Plaintiff Lynette Campanella voluntarily dismissed this claim before it was submitted to the jury. Plaintiff Nino Campanella's claim was submitted to the jury which returned a verdict against him and in favor of all defendants. 6. Sixth Claim for Relief against Defendants Oberlander, Longoria, Merino, and Davis for False Imprisonment under California state law. Plaintiff Lynette Campanella 3

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

voluntarily dismissed this claim before the matter was submitted to the jury. Plaintiff Nino Campanella's claim was submitted to the jury which returned a verdict against him and in favor of all defendants. 7. Seventh Claim for Relief against Defendants Oberlander, Longoria, Merino, and Davis for Negligence under California state law. Plaintiffs claims were submitted to the jury which returned a verdict against both Plaintiffs and in favor of Defendants. 8. Eighth Claim for Relief against Defendants Oberlander, Longoria, Merino, and Davis for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress under California state law. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this claim before it was submitted to the jury. IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Dated: January 28, 2009

RICHARD SEEBORG United States Magistrate Judge

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE C 04-4906 RS & C 05-1945 RS

4