Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Leyro v. Police Dep't

February 11, 2009

DOMINGO LEYRO, PLAINTIFF,
v.
POLICE DEPARTMENT, JEFF PALMER, CITY OF CHOWCHILLA, CHOWCHILLA INCLUSIVE, TYLER J. HORMEL, AND DOES 1-100, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER Discovery Cut-Off: 1/15/10 Non-Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline: 1/29/10 Deadline: 2/15/10 Dispositive Motion Filing Settlement Conference Date: 1/28/10 10:00 Ctrm. 9 Pre-Trial Conference Date: 4/26/10 11:00 Ctrm. 3 Trial Date: 6/8/10 9:00 Ctrm. 3 (JT-7 days)

Date of Scheduling Conference. February 11, 2009.

Appearances Of Counsel

Law Offices of Steven Geringer by Steven Geringer, Esq., appeared on behalf of Plaintiff.

Mayfield & Leath by Michelle E. Sassano, Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendants.

I. Summary of Pleadings

1. On or about August 7, 2007, the City of Chowchilla Police Department received a call requesting a police officer to be dispatched to 2018 Monroe Court regarding a verbal dispute between a male and a female. The dispatch was notified that both parties were law enforcement and guns were in the home. The phone was then disconnected. Dispatch recontacted the residence and a male answered the phone and refused to stay on the line and hung up. Officer Hormel arrived first to the home with Officer Palmer arriving shortly thereafter. Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that he was requested to get his girlfriend and he merely shut the door and proceeded to contact his girlfriend. Plaintiff alleges that the officers did not have probable cause to enter the home. Defendants dispute this allegation. Plaintiff's complaint alleges that he walked to the master bedroom to get his girlfriend and when he turned around to walk back to the front door he saw a laser light on his chest and he received a verbal warning that he was going to be tased. Plaintiff responded by extending his arms and showing the palm of his hands while telling the Defendants that they did not need to tase him. The complaint alleges that almost instantaneously Plaintiff was tased.

2. Defendants dispute almost all the factual allegations set forth in the complaint. The only facts which Defendants agree with are that Plaintiff was arrested on August 7, 2007, for violation of Penal Code § 148(a)(1), resisting, delaying or obstructing an officer.

II. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings.

1. The parties do not anticipate amending the pleadings at this time.

III. Factual Summary.

A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further Proceedings.

1. Defendants are the City of Chowchilla and two officers within the police department.

2. On or about August 7, 2007, the City of Chowchilla Police Department received a call requesting a police officer be dispatched to 2018 Monroe Court.

3. Officer Hormel and Officer Palmer were dispatched to 2018 Monroe Court.

4. That Plaintiff was arrested under California Penal Code § 148(a)(1), resisting, delaying or obstructing a police officer.

5. The Defendant officers were acting under color of law.

6. The Defendant officers were acting in the course and scope of their employment.

B. Contested Facts.

Defendants contest:

1. That officers lacked reasonable suspicion or probable cause to enter Plaintiffs home.

2. That the officers used excessive force.

3. That Officer Hormel or Officer Palmer entered the home without probable cause.

4. That Plaintiff simply closed the door and went to get his girlfriend.

5. That Plaintiff was tased almost instantaneously as the officers provided the warning.

6. That Plaintiff turned from the master bathroom to go back to the front door.

7. That Officer Palmer and/or Officer Hormel caused a harmful or offensive contact toward Plaintiff.

8. That Officer Hormel and/or Officer Palmer were the proximate or legal cause of any alleged injuries suffered by Plaintiff.

9. That Officer Palmer and/or Officer Hormel falsely arrested Plaintiff.

10. That any conduct by or attributable to Officer Palmer and/or Officer Hormel was outrageous.

11. That Officer Palmer and/or Officer Hormel acted with the intent to cause emotional distress and/or in reckless disregard of the probability that Plaintiff would suffer emotional distress.

12. That Officer Palmer and/or Officer Hormel intentionally intruded into Plaintiff's home which caused harm to Plaintiff.

13. That Officer Palmer and/or Officer Hormel intentionally, recklessly and/or negligently ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.