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.

G.H. v. City of Los Angeles

October 23, 2009

G.H BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM DAWN HOPKINS, ROBERT R. GREGG INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS VICTIM DECEDENT'S PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, JUDITH GREGG, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS VICTIM DECEDENT'S PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFFS,
v.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A MUNICIPALITY OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, A PUBLIC AGENCY WITHIN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, WILLIAM BRATTON, AN INDIVIDUAL SUED IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, PAUL RAZO, AN INDIVIDUAL, MINERVA MOTA, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable: Gary A. Feess Magistrate: Alicia G. Rosenberg

JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL BY JURY

TO THE HONORABLE COURT AND TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD THEREIN:

This action came on regularly for trial on October 13, 2009 in Courtroom "740" of the United States District Court for the Central District of California before the Honorable Gary A. Feess, United States District Court Judge. Plaintiffs G.H by and through her Guardian ad Litem DAWN HOPKINS, ROBERT R. GREGG individually, and as victim decedent's personal representative, JUDITH GREGG, individually, and as victim decedent's personal representative were represented by Stephen Allen Jamieson and Donald W. Flaig. The DefendantsCITY OF LOS ANGELES, LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, WILLIAM J. BRATTON, PAUL RAZO and MINERVA MOTA, were represented by Deputy City Attorney Rena M. Shahandeh.

A jury of eight (8) persons were regularly empaneled and sworn.

Witnesses were sworn and testified and documentary evidence was introduced and admitted into evidence. After hearing the evidence and arguments of counsel, the jury was duly instructed by the Court and the cause was submitted to the jury with directions to return a verdict on the issues, if after proper deliberations, they could do so. The jury deliberated and thereafter returned to the court with their unanimous verdict as follows, towit:

JURY VERDICT

WE, THE JURY, in the above-entitled action, unanimously find on the questions presented as follows:

QUESTION NO. 1: Do you unanimously find by a preponderance of the evidence that LAPD Officer Minerva Mota used unreasonable force in violation of Mark Gregg's right to be free from unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment? (Please check one)

Yes No T

Go to Question No. 2.

QUESTION NO. 2: Do you unanimously find by a preponderance of the evidence that LAPD Officer Paul Razo used unreasonable force in violation of Mark Gregg's right to be free from unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment? (Please check one)

Yes No T

If your answer to Question No. 1 or 2 was "yes" please proceed to Question Nos. 3 and 4. If you answered "No" to both go to Question No. 5.

QUESTION NO. 3: Do you unanimously find by a preponderance of the evidence that either LAPD Officer Minerva Mota or LAPD Officer Paul Razo, in the performance of their duties on July 24, 2007, acted maliciously, in reckless disregard, or ...


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.