The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Andrew J. Guilford United States District Judge
MATTER FOR DETERMINATION BY THE HONORABLE ANDREW J. GUILFORD
On August 18, 2010, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of James Fouste, Mark Kunar, Jarrett Kurimay, and Michael Carona. The Court granted summary adjudication in favor of the County of Orange on Plaintiff's Monell claim. In addition, the Court granted summary adjudication in favor of the remaining Defendants on Plaintiff's claims of unlawful detention, unreasonable searches, and false arrest under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -- Fourth Amendment; and on Plaintiff's claim of retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -- First Amendment; and on some of the Plaintiff's claims of excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -- Fourth Amendment as to some of the remaining Defendants; and on the Plaintiff's claim of "bystander" and "supervisor" liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, except as to Ira Essoe; and on the Plaintiff's state law claim of false arrest; and on the Plaintiff's state law claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress.
On May 31, 2011, pursuant to a Stipulation of the parties, the Court dismissed with prejudice all of the Plaintiff's remaining claims against Ira Essoe and Sean Hilliard.
On June 8, 2011, pursuant to a new Pretrial Conference Order, the Plaintiff withdrew all remaining claims against the remaining Defendants, except for his claims of excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -- Fourth Amendment, and dismissed the County of Orange as a Defendant.
This action came on regularly for trial on June 14, 2011 in Courtroom 10D of the United States District Court at 411 W. 4th Street, Santa Ana, California, the Honorable District Judge Andrew J. Guilford presiding. Plaintiff Joshua Rashid Radwan appeared by Attorneys Christopher Mears and Carol Lavacot, and Defendants Matthew Prince, Mark Hergesheimer, Michael Padilla, Cyril Foster, Manuel Garcia, and David Hernandez appeared by Attorneys David Lawrence and Daniel Cha.
A jury of eight persons was regularly empanelled and sworn. Witnesses were sworn and testified. On June 30, 2011, the Court excused one juror for medical reasons. 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 special issues.
The jury deliberated and thereafter returned to Court with its verdict as follows on July 1, 2011:
1. Did any Defendant violate Plaintiff Joshua Radwan's Constitutional Rights? (Answer "Yes" or "No" following the name of each Defendant)