Trejo et al v. County of Imperial et al

Filing 242

ORDER Re Damages on Plaintiff's Negligence Claim. Signed by Magistrate Judge David D. Leshner on 9/26/2024.(rxc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12
13
14

JOSE TREJO, et al.,

Case No.: 20-cv-1465-DDL
Plaintiffs,

ORDER RE DAMAGES ON
PLAINTIFFS’ NEGLIGENCE
CLAIM

v.
CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL
GROUP,

15

Defendant.

16
17

In February 2019, Jose Banda Pichardo (“Pichardo”) died by suicide while in

18

custody at the Imperial County Sheriff’s Department Regional Adult Detention Facility

19

(“ICRADF”). California Forensic Medical Group (“CFMG”) is a medical provider that

20

contracted with Imperial County to provide medical and mental health care to inmates at

21

ICRADF. Pichardo’s parents, Jose Trejo and Susana Banda, assert causes of action against

22

CFMG for negligence and wrongful death arising from their son’s suicide.

23

It is undisputed that Plaintiffs may not seek damages for Pichardo’s pre-death pain

24

and suffering under California law because the negligence claim is a survival action, and

25

this case was filed prior to January 1, 2022. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 377.34. However,

26

Plaintiffs assert they are entitled to seek damages for Pichardo’s pre-death pain and

27

suffering under Chaudhry v. City of Los Angeles, 751 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2014), and loss

28

///
1
20-cv-1465-DDL

1

of life damages under Valenzuela v. City of Anaheim, 6 F.4th 1098 (9th Cir. 2021). The

2

Court disagrees.

3

Both Chaudhry and Valenzuela considered the damages available for claims under

4

42 U.S.C. § 1983. In Chaudhry, the Ninth Circuit held that §377.34 “does not apply to

5

§ 1983 claims where the decedent’s death was caused by the violation of federal law.”

6

Chaudhry, 751 F.3d at 1105; accord Valenzuela, 6 F.4th at 1103 (“Following Chaudhry,

7

we therefore hold that § 377.34’s prohibition of loss of life damages is inconsistent with

8

§ 1983.”).1 The guiding principle of Chaudhry and Valenzuela is that “California’s

9

prohibition against pre-death pain and suffering damages limits recovery too severely to

10

be consistent with § 1983’s deterrence policy.” Chaudhry, 751 F.3d at 1105. That

11

principle does not govern where, as here, a plaintiff asserts claims only under California

12

law and not under § 1983.

13

“In diversity cases, a federal court must conform to state law to the extent mandated

14

by the principles set forth in the seminal case of Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 []

15

(1938).” Feldman v. Allstate Ins. Co., 322 F.3d 660, 666 (9th Cir.2003). Thus, “[p]ursuant

16

to Erie and its progeny, federal courts sitting in diversity apply state substantive law and

17

federal procedural law.” Id. “). “[A] federal court exercising supplemental jurisdiction

18

over state law claims is bound to apply the law of the forum state to the same extent as if

19

it were exercising its diversity jurisdiction.” Bass v. First Pac. Networks, Inc., 219 F.3d

20

1052, 1055 (9th Cir. 2000). Further, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that the right to

21

damages “is substantive, for the question of the proper measure of damages is inseparably

22

connected with the right of action, and numerous cases have held as much.” Clausen v.

23

M/V NEW CARISSA, 339 F.3d 1049, 1064-65 (9th Cir. 2003). See also Browning-Ferris

24

Indus. of Vermont, Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., 492 U.S. 257, 278 (1989) (“In a diversity

25

action, or in any other lawsuit where state law provides the basis of decision, the propriety

26
27
28

Unless otherwise noted, all internal quotation marks, ellipses, brackets, citations and
footnotes are omitted from citations.
1

2
20-cv-1465-DDL

1

of an award of punitive damages for the conduct in question, and the factors the jury may

2

consider in determining their amount, are questions of state law.”).

3

Plaintiffs argue “the policies of Section 1983 should apply here,” including the

4

available damages. Dkt. No. 218 at 3. But Plaintiffs cite no case applying damages

5

principles under § 1983 to state law claims solely because the defendant was acting under

6

color of state law. Indeed, if Plaintiffs were correct, damages for pre-death pain and

7

suffering and loss of life under Chaudhry and Valenzuela would be available in every state

8

law survival action in which a state actor is the defendant. That result cannot be squared

9

with Erie’s requirement that Courts exercising diversity or supplemental jurisdiction apply

10

substantive state law and the Ninth Circuit’s recognition that damages are substantive.

11

Accordingly, the Court concludes that California law provides the exclusive source of

12

available damages and that Plaintiffs may not seek damages for Pichardo’s pre-death pain

13

and suffering and loss of life under Chaudhry and Valenzuela.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 26, 2024

16
17

Hon. David D. Leshner
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

20-cv-1465-DDL