Velasquez v. City of Santa Clara et al

Filing 266

PROPOSED VERDICT FORM. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on April 4, 2014. (psglc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

VICTOR VELAZQUEZ,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF SANTA CLARA, et al.,
Defendants.

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:11-cv-03588-PSG
[PROPOSED] VERDICT FORM

16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

Date: April 4, 2014

____________________________
Paul S. Grewal
United States Magistrate Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Case No. 5:11-cv-03588-PSG
[PROPOSED] VERDICT FORM

1
2

I.

42 U.S.C. § 1983 – VIOLATION OF FOURTH AMENDMENT – EXCESSIVE
FORCE BY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS STEVE BURESS, CRAIG
MIDDLEKAUFF AND NICK RICHARDS

3

We, the jury, unanimously answer the Questions submitted to us as follows:

4

1. Did any defendant use excessive force against Victor Velasquez?

5
6

a. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____
b. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____

7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

c. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No _____
If your answer to Question 1 as to any defendant is “Yes,” then answer Question 2 for that
defendant but for no others. If you answered “No” to all defendants, go to Section II.
2. Was Velasquez harmed by any defendant’s excessive force?

11
a. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____
12
13
14
15

b. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____
c. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No _____
If your answer to Question 2 as to any defendant is “Yes,” then answer Question 3 for that
defendant but for no others. If you answered “No” to all defendants, go to Section II.

16
17

3. Was any defendant’s conduct a substantial factor in causing harm to Velasquez?

18

a. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____

19

b. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____

20

c. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No _____

21
22

IF YOUR ANSWER TO QUESTION 3 AS TO ANY DEFENDANT IS “YES,” GO TO
SECTION II.

23

OTHERWISE, GO TO SECTION V.

24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No. 5:11-cv-03588-PSG
[PROPOSED] VERDICT FORM

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

II.

42 USC § 1983 - PUBLIC ENTITY LIABILITY - RATIFICATION

We, the jury, unanimously answer the Questions submitted to us as follows:
1. Was Stephen Lodge a supervisor of the City of Santa Clara with final authority over the
acts of any defendant whose excessive force was a substantial factor in causing harm to
Velasquez?
Yes _____ No _____
If your answer to Question 1 is “Yes,” then answer Question 2. If you answered “No,” go to
Section III.
2. Did Lodge know of the acts of the defendant whose excessive force was a substantial
factor in causing harm to Velasquez?
Yes _____ No _____
If your answer to Question is “Yes,”, then answer Question 3. If you answered “No,” go to Section
III.

12
13
14

3. Did Lodge specifically approve of the acts of the defendant whose excessive force was
a substantial factor in causing harm to Velasquez?
Yes _____ No _____

15
GO TO SECTION III.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Case No. 5:11-cv-03588-PSG
[PROPOSED] VERDICT FORM

1
2
3

III.

42 USC § 1983 - PUBLIC ENTITY LIABILITY - FAILURE TO TRAIN

We, the jury, unanimously answer the Questions submitted to us as follows:
1. Was the City of Santa Clara’s training program inadequate to train its officers to
properly handle usual and recurring situations?

4
5
6

Yes _____ No _____
If your answer to Question 1 is “Yes.”, then answer Question 2. If you answered “No,” go to
Section IV.

7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15

2. Did City of Santa Clara know, or should it have been obvious to it, that the inadequate
training program was likely to result in a deprivation of Velasquez’ Fourth Amendment
rights?
Yes _____ No _____
If your answer to Question 2 is “Yes,” then answer Question 3. If not, go to Section IV.
3. Was the failure to provide adequate training the cause of the deprivation of Velasquez’
Fourth Amendment rights?
Yes _____ No _____
GO TO SECTION IV.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Case No. 5:11-cv-03588-PSG
[PROPOSED] VERDICT FORM

1
2
3

IV.

BANE ACT

We, the jury, unanimously answer the Questions submitted to us as follows:
1. Did any officer(s) interfere with Plaintiff’s constitutional rights through threats,
intimidation, and coercion?

4
5

a. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____

6

b. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____

7

c. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No _____

8

GO TO SECTION V.

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Case No. 5:11-cv-03588-PSG
[PROPOSED] VERDICT FORM

1
2

V.

NEGLIGENCE

We, the jury, unanimously answer the Questions submitted to us as follows:

3
1. Was any officer negligent?
4
5

a. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____

6

b. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____

7

c. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No _____

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

If your answer to Question 1 as to any defendant is “Yes,” then answer Question 2 for that
defendant but for no others. If you answered “No” to all defendants, go to Section VI.
2. Was the negligence of the officer(s) a substantial factor in causing harm to Velasquez?

11

a. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____

12

b. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____

13

c. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No _____

14
15
16
17
18
19

If your answer to Question 2 as to any defendant is “Yes,” then answer Question 3. If not, go to
Section VI.
3. Was Velasquez negligent?
Yes _____ No _____
If your answer to Question 3 is “Yes,” then answer Question 4. If not, go to Section VI.
4. Was Velasquez’ negligence a substantial factor in causing his harm?

20
21
22
23
24
25

Yes _____ No _____
If your answer to Question 4 is “Yes,” then answer Question 5. If not, go to Section VI.
5. What percentage of responsibility for Velasquez’ harm do you assign to Velasquez?
_______%
GO TO SECTION VI.

26
27
28
6
Case No. 5:11-cv-03588-PSG
[PROPOSED] VERDICT FORM

1
2
3
4
5
6

VI.

BATTERY BY A PEACE OFFICER

We, the jury, unanimously answer the Questions submitted to us as follows:
1. Did any officer(s) touch Velasquez with the intent to harm or offend him?
a. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____
b. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____
c. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No _____

7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

If your answer to Question 1 as to any defendant is “Yes,” then answer Question 2 for that
defendant but for no others. If not, go to Section VII.
2. Did any officer(s) use unreasonable force when arresting Velasquez?
a. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____
b. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____

12
c. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No _____
13
14
15
16

If your answer to Question 2 as to any defendant is “Yes,” then answer Question 3 for that
defendant but for no others. If not, go to Section VII.
3. Was any officer(s)’ use of unreasonable force a substantial factor in causing harm to
Velasquez?

17

a. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____

18

b. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____

19

c. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No _____

20

GO TO SECTION VII.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
Case No. 5:11-cv-03588-PSG
[PROPOSED] VERDICT FORM

1
2
3

VII.

ASSAULT

We, the jury, unanimously answer the Questions submitted to us as follows:
1. Did any defendant act with the intent to cause a harmful or an offensive contact with
Velasquez or with the intent to place him in fear of a harmful or an offensive contact?

4
5

a. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____

6

b. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____

7

c. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No _____

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

If your answer to Question 1 as to any defendant is “Yes,” then answer Question 2 for that
defendant but for no others. If not, go to Section VIII.
2. Did Velasquez reasonably believe that he was about to be touched in a harmful or an
offensive manner?
a. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____

12
b. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____
13
14
15
16

c. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No _____
If your answer to Question 2 as to any defendant is “Yes,” then answer Question 3 for that
defendant but for no others. If not, go to Section VIII.
3. Did Velasquez consent to any defendant’s conduct?

17
a. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____
18
19
20
21
22

b. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____
c. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No _____
If your answer to Question 3 as to any defendant is “Yes,” then answer Question 4 for that
defendant but for no others. If not, go to Section VIII.
4. Was any defendant’s conduct a substantial factor in causing harm to Velasquez?

23
24
25
26
27

a. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____
b. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____
c. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No _____
If your answer to Question 4 as to any defendant is “Yes,” then answer Question 5 for that
defendant but for no others. If not, go to Section VIII.

28
8
Case No. 5:11-cv-03588-PSG
[PROPOSED] VERDICT FORM

1
2

5. Did any defendant reasonably believe that Victor Velasquez was going to harm him or
another person?
a. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____

3
b. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

c. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No ____
If your answer to Question 5 as to any defendant is “Yes,” then answer Question 6 for that
defendant but for no others. If not, go to Section VIII.
6. Did the defendant use only the amount of force that was reasonably necessary to protect
himself or another person?
d. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____
e. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____
f. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No ____

12
GO TO SECTION VIII.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
Case No. 5:11-cv-03588-PSG
[PROPOSED] VERDICT FORM

1
2
3
4
5
6

VIII. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
We, the jury, unanimously answer the Questions submitted to us as follows:
1. Was any defendant’s conduct outrageous?
a. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____
b. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____
c. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No _____

7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

If your answer to Question 1 as to any defendant is “Yes,” then answer Question 2 for that
defendant but for no others. If not, go to Section IX.
2. Did any defendant act with reckless disregard of the possibility that Velasquez would
suffer emotional distress?

11

a. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____

12

b. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____

13

c. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No _____

14
15
16

If your answer to Question 2 as to any defendant is “Yes,” then answer Question 3 for that
defendant but for no others. If not, go to Section IX.
3. Did Velasquez suffer severe emotional distress?

17

a. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____

18

b. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____

19

c. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No _____

20
21
22

If your answer to Question 3 as to any defendant is “Yes,” then answer Question 4 for that
defendant but for no others. If not, go to Section IX.
4. Was any defendant’s conduct a substantial factor in causing Velasquez’ severe
emotional distress?

23
24
25
26
27

a. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____
b. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____
c. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No _____
GO TO SECTION IX.

28
10
Case No. 5:11-cv-03588-PSG
[PROPOSED] VERDICT FORM

1
2
3
4
5
6

IX.

RALPH ACT

We, the jury, unanimously answer the Questions submitted to us as follows:
1. Did any defendant threaten or commit violent acts against Velasquez?
a. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____
b. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____
c. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No _____

7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

If your answer to Question 1 as to any defendant is “Yes,” then answer Question 2 for that
defendant but for no others. If not, go to Section X.
2. Was any defendant's perception of Velasquez's race and/or ancestry a motivating reason
for that defendant’s threats or conduct?

11

a. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____

12

b. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____

13

c. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No _____

14
15
16

If your answer to Question 2 as to any defendant is “Yes,” then answer Question 3 for that
defendant but for no others. If not, go to Section X.
3. Would a reasonable person in Velasquez’s position have believed that any defendant
would carry out his threats?

17
a. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

b. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____
c. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No _____
If your answer to Question 3 as to any defendant is “Yes,” then answer Question 4 for that
defendant but for no others. If not, go to Section X.
4. Would a reasonable person in Velasquez's position have been intimidated by any
defendant's conduct?
a. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____
b. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____
c. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No _____

27
28

If your answer to Question 4 as to any defendant is “Yes,” then answer Question 5 for that
defendant but for no others. If not, go to Section X.
11
Case No. 5:11-cv-03588-PSG
[PROPOSED] VERDICT FORM

1

5. Was any defendant's conduct a substantial factor in causing harm to Velasquez?

2

a. Steve Buress: Yes _____ No _____

3

b. Craig Middlekauff: Yes _____ No _____

4

c. Nick Richards: Yes _____ No _____

5

GO TO SECTION X.

6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
Case No. 5:11-cv-03588-PSG
[PROPOSED] VERDICT FORM

1
2
3
4
5
6

X.

RATIFICATION

We, the jury, unanimously answer the Questions submitted to us as follows:
1. We, the jury, have answered “Yes” to one or more of the following questions:
a. _______ Section IV, Question 1 (Violations of the Bane Act)
b. _______ Section V, Question 2 (Negligence)
c. _______ Section VI, Question 3 (Battery by a Peace Officer)

7
8
9

d. _______ Section VII, Question 6 (Assault)
e. _______ Section VIII, Question 4 (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

f. _______ Section IX, Question 5 (Violations of the Ralph Act)

11

If you checked any question under Question 1, then answer Question 2. If not, go to Section XI.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

2. While engaging in the conduct at issue in Question 1, was Buress, Middlekauff, and/or
Richards intending to act on behalf of the City of Santa Clara?
Yes _____ No ______
If your answer to Question 2 is “Yes,” then answer Question 3. If not, go to Section XI.
3. Did the City of Santa Clara learn of the conduct that subjected Buress, Middlekauff,
and/or Richards to liability under any of the following theories after the conduct
occurred?
Yes _____ No ______

19
If your answer to Question 3 is “Yes,” then answer Question 4. If not, go to Section XI.
20
21
22

4. Did the City of Santa Clara approve of the conduct that subjected Buress, Middlekauff,
and/or Richards to liability under any of the following theories?
Yes _____ No ______

23
24

GO TO SECTION XI.

25
26
27
28
13
Case No. 5:11-cv-03588-PSG
[PROPOSED] VERDICT FORM

1
2
3
4
5
6

XI.

DAMAGES

We, the jury, unanimously answer the Questions submitted to us as follows:
1. We, the jury, have answered “Yes” to one or more of the following questions:
a. _______ Section I, Question 3 (§ 1983- Excessive Use of Force)
b. _______ Section II, Question 3 (§ 1983- Public Entity Liability by Ratification)

7

c. _______ Section III, Question 3 (§ 1983- Public Entity Liability by Failure to
xxxxxxxiTrain)

8

d. _______ Section IV, Question 1 (Violations of the Bane Act)

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

e. _______ Section V, Question 2 (Negligence)
f. _______ Section VI, Question 3 (Battery by a Peace Officer)

11
12
13

g. _______ Section VII, Question 6 (Assault)
h. _______ Section VIII, Question 4 (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)

14

i. _______ Section IX, Question 5 (Violations of the Ralph Act)

15

If you checked any question under Question 1, then answer Question 2. If not, stop here, answer
no further questions, and have the foreperson sign and date this form.

16
17
18

2. What is the total amount of damages, if any, suffered by Velasquez? Do not award
duplicate damages for the same harm suffered from multiple claims.
$ __________________

19
20
21
22
23

3. Did Velasquez use reasonable efforts to mitigate his damages?
Yes _____ No _____
If your answer to Question 3 is “No,” then answer Question 4. If not, go to Question 5.
4. How much of Velasquez’ damages could have been mitigated by Velasquez’ reasonable
efforts?

24
25

$ __________________

26
27
28
14
Case No. 5:11-cv-03588-PSG
[PROPOSED] VERDICT FORM

1
2

5. We, the jury, have answered “Yes” to one or more of the following questions with
respect to the following defendants:
a. Section IV, Question 1 (Violations of the Bane Act)

3
i. Steve Buress: _____
4
5
6

ii. Craig Middlekauff: _____
iii. Nick Richards: _____

7

b. Section V, Question 2 (Negligence)

8

i. Steve Buress: _____

9

ii. Craig Middlekauff: _____

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14

iii. Nick Richards: _____
c. Section VI, Question 3 (Battery by a Peace Officer)
i. Steve Buress: _____
ii. Craig Middlekauff: _____
iii. Nick Richards: _____

15
d. Section VII, Question 6 (Assault)
16
17
18
19
20

i. Steve Buress: _____
ii. Craig Middlekauff: _____
iii. Nick Richards: _____
e. Section VIII, Question 4 (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)

21

i. Steve Buress: _____

22

ii. Craig Middlekauff: _____

23

iii. Nick Richards: _____

24
25
26

f. Section IX, Question 5 (Violations of the Ralph Act)
i. Steve Buress: _____
ii. Craig Middlekauff: _____

27
iii. Nick Richards: _____
28
15
Case No. 5:11-cv-03588-PSG
[PROPOSED] VERDICT FORM

1
2
3

If you checked any question for any defendant under Question 5, go to Question 6 and answer as to
each of the officers whom you checked If not, stop here, answer no further questions, and have the
foreperson sign and date this form.
5. Did the officer(s) engage in malice, oppression, or fraud with respect to any of the listed
claims for which you answered “Yes” above?

4
5

i. Steve Buress: _____ Yes

_______ No

6

ii. Craig Middlekauff: _____ Yes

7

iii. Nick Richards: _____ Yes

8

_______ No

_______ No

If you checked “Yes” for any defendant under Question 5, then answer Question 6. If not, stop
here, answer no further questions, and have the foreperson sign and date this form.

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

6. What amount, if any, do you award in punitive damages?

11

Steve Buress: $ __________________

12

Craig Middlekauff: $ __________________

13

Nick Richards: $ __________________

14

Have the foreperson sign and date this form.

15
16

Signed: _________________________________ Dated: _________________

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16
Case No. 5:11-cv-03588-PSG
[PROPOSED] VERDICT FORM