Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Joe Klein v. City of Los Angeles

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 2, 2012

JOE KLEIN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT AND DOES 1-10 INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable S. George WU United States District Judge

Assigned to: Hon. Judge George Wu Ctrm: 10 Magistrate: Hon. Judge Frederick F. Mumm Ctrm: E-9th Floor

JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL VERDICT

This action came on regularly for trial by jury on June 19, 2012, with attorney FRANK J. LONGO and LAWRENCE M. LONGO appearing for Plaintiff JOE KLEIN and Defendants, CITY OF LOS ANGELES, JOSH ORDONEZ, DAVID HAYDEN, RAFAEL LOPEZ, NOREEN HERBERT, JAIME MARTINEZ, and GIOVANNI ESPINOZA appearing in person and by and through RICHARD M. ARIAS, Deputy City Attorney; a jury of eight persons duly impaneled and sworn; witnesses testified; evidence was received; and after being duly instructed by the court, the jury deliberated and thereon returned the following special verdict:

JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL VERDICT

"TITLE OF COURT AND CAUSE"

"WE, THE JURY, IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE, UNANIMOUSLY FIND AS FOLLOWS:

Please answer by unanimous vote the following questions by placing an T in the space following the appropriate response:

QUESTION NO. 1: Has Plaintiff Joe Klein proved by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the following defendant officers unreasonably seized his property/residence in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983?

ANSWER:

JOSH ORDONEZ Yes No T DAVID HAYDEN Yes No T RAFAEL LOPEZ Yes No T NOREEN HERBERT Yes No T JAIME MARTINEZ Yes No T GIOVANNI ESPINOZA Yes No T

If your answer to Question No. 1 is "Yes" for any of the officers, then proceed to Question No. 2. If your answer to Question No. 1 is "No" for all of the officers then skip to Question No. 3.

QUESTION NO. 2: Has Plaintiff Joe Klein proved by a preponderance of the evidence that any of those defendants' unreasonable seizure of his property was the moving force that caused harm to him?

ANSWER:

JOSH ORDONEZ Yes No DAVID HAYDEN Yes No RAFAEL LOPEZ Yes No NOREEN HERBERT Yes No JAIME MARTINEZ Yes No GIOVANNI ESPINOZA Yes No

Now Proceed to Question No. 3

QUESTION NO. 3: Has Plaintiff Joe Klein proved by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the following defendants arrested him without probable cause in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983?

ANSWER:

NOREEN HERBERT Yes No T JAIME MARTINEZ Yes No T

If your answer to Question No. 3 is "Yes" for any of the officers, then proceed to Question No. 4. If your answer to Question No. 3 is "No" for all of the officers then skip to Question No. 5.

QUESTION NO. 4: Has Plaintiff Joe Klein proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant's arresting him without probable cause was the moving force that caused harm to the Plaintiff?

ANSWER:

NOREEN HERBERT Yes No

JAIME MARTINEZ Yes No

Now Proceed to Question No. 5.

QUESTION NO. 5: Has Plaintiff Joe Klein proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant Officer David Hayden used excessive force when he shot at Plaintiff, and/or that Officers Herbert or Martinez used excessive force in arresting him in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983?

ANSWER:

DAVID HAYDEN Yes No T NOREEN HERBERT Yes No T JAIME MARTINEZ Yes No T

If your answer to Question No. 5 is "Yes" for any of the officers, then proceed to Question No. 6. If your answer to Question No. 5 is "No" for all of the officers then skip to Question No. 7.

QUESTION NO. 6: Has Plaintiff Joe Klein proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant's use of excessive force was the moving force that caused harm to him?

ANSWER:

DAVID HAYDEN Yes No NOREEN HERBERT Yes No JAIME MARTINEZ Yes No

Now Proceed to Question No. 7

QUESTION NO. 7: In regards to his claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, did Plaintiff Joe Klein prove by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the following defendant's conduct was outrageous?

ANSWER:

JOSH ORDONEZ Yes No T DAVID HAYDEN Yes No T RAFAEL LOPEZ Yes No T NOREEN HERBERT Yes No T JAIME MARTINEZ Yes No T GIOVANNI ESPINOZA Yes No T

If your answer to Question No. 7 is "Yes", for any of the officers, then answer Question No. 8. If your answer to Question No. 7 is "No" for all the officers, then skip to Question No. 11.

QUESTION NO. 8: Did Plaintiff Joe Klein prove by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the following defendants intended to cause him emotional distress?

ANSWER:

JOSH ORDONEZ Yes No DAVID HAYDEN Yes No RAFAEL LOPEZ Yes No NOREEN HERBERT Yes No JAIME MARTINEZ Yes No GIOVANNI ESPINOZA Yes No

If your answer to Question No. 8 is "Yes", as to any officers, then answer Question No. 9. If your answer to Question No. 8 was "No" as to all the officers, then skip to Question No. 11.

QUESTION NO. 9: Did Plaintiff Joe Klein prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered severe emotional distress?

ANSWER: Yes No

If your answer to Question No. 9 is "Yes", then answer Question No. 10. If you answered "No", to Question No. 9, then skip to Question No. 11.

QUESTION NO. 10: Did Plaintiff Joe Klein prove by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the following defendant's conduct was the substantial factor in causing him severe emotional distress?

ANSWER:

JOSH ORDONEZ Yes No DAVID HAYDEN Yes No RAFAEL LOPEZ Yes No NOREEN HERBERT Yes No JAIME MARTINEZ Yes No GIOVANNI ESPINOZA Yes No

Now Proceed to Question No. 11

QUESTION NO. 11: As to his claim for assault and battery, did Plaintiff Joe Klein prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendants Herbert and/or Martinez intentionally touched him or caused him to be touched, and/or that Defendant Hayden caused Plaintiff to believe that he was about to be contacted in a physically harmful manner?

ANSWER:

NOREEN HERBERT Yes No T JAIME MARTINEZ Yes No T DAVID HAYDEN Yes No T

If your answer to Question No. 11 is "Yes", as to any officer, then answer Question No. 12. If you answered "No", as to all the officers then skip to Question No. 15.

QUESTION NO. 12: Did Plaintiff Joe Klein, prove by a preponderance of the evidence that any of those defendants used unreasonable force in arresting him?

ANSWER:

NOREEN HERBERT Yes No JAIME MARTINEZ Yes No DAVID HAYDEN Yes No

If your answer to Question No. 12 is "Yes" as to any officer, then answer Question No. 13. If you answered "No", as to all the officers then skip to Question No. 15.

QUESTION NO. 13: Was the Plaintiff actually harmed as a result of the application of unreasonable force?

ANSWER: Yes No

QUESTION NO. 14: Was any of the following Defendant Officer's use of unreasonable force a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff's harm?

ANSWER:

NOREEN HERBERT Yes No JAIME MARTINEZ Yes No DAVID HAYDEN Yes No

Now answer Question No. 15.

QUESTION NO. 15: As to his claim for false arrest, did Plaintiff Joe Klein, prove by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant Herbert and/or Martinez arrested him without a warrant?

ANSWER:

NOREEN HERBERT Yes T No JAIME MARTINEZ Yes T No

If you answer to Question No. 15 is "Yes" as to any Defendant, then answer Question No. 16. If you answered "No" as to both, then skip to Question No. 19.

QUESTION NO. 16: Has either Defendant shown by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she had reasonable cause to believe that Plaintiff had committed a crime in Defendant's presence such that he or she had authority to arrest the Plaintiff without a warrant?

ANSWER: Yes T No

If your answer to question No. 16 is "No", then answer Question No. 17. If you answered "Yes", then skip to Question No. 19.

QUESTION NO. 17: Was the Plaintiff actually harmed by the arrest without a warrant?

ANSWER: Yes No

If your answer to Question No. 17 is "No", then skip to Question No. 19. If you answered "Yes", then answer Question No. 18.

QUESTION NO. 18: Was either defendant's conduct a substantial factor in causing him harm?

ANSWER:

NOREEN HERBERT Yes No JAIME MARTINEZ Yes No

Now proceed to answer Question No. 19.

QUESTION NO. 19: As to his claim for trespass, did Plaintiff Joe Klein, prove by a preponderance of the evidence that occupied and/or controlled some property or residence?

ANSWER: Yes T No

If your answer to Question No. 19 is "Yes", then answer Question No. 20. If you answered "No", then skip to Question No. 23.

QUESTION NO. 20: Did Plaintiff Joe Klein, prove that any of the Defendant Officers entered property or residence occupied or controlled by him without valid consent or permission?

ANSWER:

JOSH ORDONEZ Yes T No DAVID HAYDEN Yes T No RAFAEL LOPEZ Yes T No NOREEN HERBERT Yes T No JAIME MARTINEZ Yes T No GIOVANNI ESPINOZA Yes T No

Now Proceed to Question No. 21.

If your answer to Question No. 20 is "Yes", then answer Question No. 21. If you answered "No", then skip to Question No. 23.

QUESTION NO. 21: Did the Plaintiff prove that he was actually harmed by that trespass?

ANSWER: Yes T No

If your answer to question No. 21 is "Yes", then answer Question No. 22. If you answered "No", then skip to Question No. 23.

QUESTION NO. 22: Did Plaintiff Joe Klein prove that any Defendant's entry into his property was a substantial factor in causing him harm?

ANSWER: Yes No T

If your answered "Yes" to any portion of Question Nos. 2, 4, 5, 10, 14, 18 or 22, then proceed to Question No. 23.

Otherwise, have your foreperson date, sign and turn in this Special Verdict Form.

QUESTION NO. 23: What are Plaintiff, Joe Klein's total damages as to the violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983 - Seizure of Property (you may refer to your answers to Questions Nos. 1 and 2 above)?

ANSWER:

[a.] medical expenses $past economic loss $Total Past Economic Damages: $

[b.] Future economic loss $medical expenses $other future economic loss $Total Future Economic Damages: $

[c.] Past non-economic loss, including [physical pain/mental suffering]: $

[d.] Future non-economic loss, including [physical pain/mental suffering]: $

TOTAL $

QUESTION NO. 24: What are Plaintiff, Joe Klein's total damages as the violation of

42 U.S. C. §1983 - False Arrest wihtout Probable Cause (you may refer to your answers to Questions Nos. 3 and 4 above)?

ANSWER:

[a.] medical expenses $past economic loss $Total Past Economic Damages: $

[b.] Future economic loss $medical expenses $other future economic loss $Total Future Economic Damages: $

[c.] Past non-economic loss, including [physical pain/mental suffering]: $

[d.] Future non-economic loss, including [physical pain/mental suffering]: $

TOTAL $

QUESTION NO. 25: What are Plaintiff, Joe Klein's total damages as the violation of 42 U.S. C. §1983 - Excessive Force (you may refer to your answers to Questions Nos. 5 and 6 above)?

ANSWER:

As to DAVID HAYDEN:

[a.] medical expenses $past economic loss $Total Past Economic Damages: $

[b.] Future economic loss $medical expenses $other future economic loss $Total Future Economic Damages: $

[c.] Past non-economic loss, including [physical pain/mental suffering]: $

[d.] Future non-economic loss, including [physical pain/mental suffering]: $

TOTAL $

ANSWER:

As to NOREEN HERBERT:

[a.] medical expenses $past economic loss $Total Past Economic Damages: $

[b.] Future economic loss $medical expenses $other future economic loss $Total Future Economic Damages: $

[c.] Past non-economic loss, including [physical pain/mental suffering]: $

[d.] Future non-economic loss, including [physical pain/mental suffering]: $

TOTAL $

ANSWER:

As to JAIME MARTINEZ:

[a.] medical expenses $past economic loss $Total Past Economic Damages: $

[b.] Future economic loss $medical expenses $other future economic loss $Total Future Economic Damages: $

[c.] Past non-economic loss, including [physical pain/mental suffering]: $

[d.] Future non-economic loss, including [physical pain/mental suffering]: $

TOTAL $

QUESTION NO. 26: What are Plaintiff, Joe Klein's total damages as to the claim of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (you may refer to your answers to Questions Nos. 7 through 10 above)?

ANSWER:

[a.] medical expenses $past economic loss $Total Past Economic Damages: $

[b.] Future economic loss $medical expenses $other future economic loss $Total Future Economic Damages: $

[c.] Past non-economic loss, including [physical pain/mental suffering]: $

[d.] Future non-economic loss, including [physical pain/mental suffering]: $

TOTAL $

QUESTION NO. 27: What are Plaintiff, Joe Klein's total damages as to his claim for Assault and Battery (you may refer to your answers to Questions Nos. 11 through 14 above)?

ANSWER:

As to DAVID HAYDEN:

[a.] medical expenses $past economic loss $Total Past Economic Damages: $

[b.] Future economic loss $medical expenses $other future economic loss $Total Future Economic Damages: $

[c.] Past non-economic loss, including [physical pain/mental suffering]: $

[d.] Future non-economic loss, including [physical pain/mental suffering]: $

TOTAL $

ANSWER:

As to NOREEN HERBERT:

[a.] medical expenses $past economic loss $Total Past Economic Damages: $

[b.] Future economic loss $medical expenses $other future economic loss $Total Future Economic Damages: $

[c.] Past non-economic loss, including [physical pain/mental suffering]: $

[d.] Future non-economic loss, including [physical pain/mental suffering]: $

TOTAL $

ANSWER:

As to JAIME MARTINEZ:

[a.] medical expenses $past economic loss $Total Past Economic Damages: $

[b.] Future economic loss $medical expenses $other future economic loss $Total Future Economic Damages: $

[c.] Past non-economic loss, including [physical pain/mental suffering]: $

[d.] Future non-economic loss, including [physical pain/mental suffering]: $

TOTAL $

QUESTION NO. 28: What are Plaintiff, Joe Klein's total damages as to his claim for False Arrest (you may refer to your answers to Questions Nos. 1 through 18 above)?

ANSWER:

As to DAVID HAYDEN:

[a.] medical expenses $past economic loss $Total Past Economic Damages: $

[b.] Future economic loss $medical expenses $other future economic loss $Total Future Economic Damages: $

[c.] Past non-economic loss, including [physical pain/mental suffering]: $

[d.] Future non-economic loss, including [physical pain/mental suffering]: $

TOTAL $

QUESTION NO. 29: What are Plaintiff, Joe Klein's total damages as to his claim for Trespass (you may refer to your answers to Questions Nos. 19 through 22 above)?

ANSWER:

As to DAVID HAYDEN:

[a.] medical expenses $past economic loss $Total Past Economic Damages: $

[b.] Future economic loss $medical expenses $other future economic loss $Total Future Economic Damages: $

[c.] Past non-economic loss, including [physical pain/mental suffering]: $

[d.] Future non-economic loss, including [physical pain/mental suffering]: $

TOTAL $

If Plaintiff, Joe Klein has proved any damages, then Answer Question No. 30.

If Plaintiff, Joe Klein has not proved any damages then have your foreperson date, sign, and turn in this Special Verdict Form.

QUESTION NO. 30: Did the Plaintiff prove by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the Defendant(s), acted with malice, oppression or reckless disregard for purposes of punitive damages as to his federal claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983 (you may refer to your answers to Questions Nos. 1 through 6 above)?

ANSWER:

JOSH ORDONEZ Yes No DAVID HAYDEN Yes No RAFAEL LOPEZ Yes No NOREEN HERBERT Yes No JAIME MARTINEZ Yes No GIOVANNI ESPINOZA Yes No

QUESTION NO. 31: Did the Plaintiff prove by a clear and convincing evidence that any of the Defendant(s), acted with malice, oppression or reckless disregard as to Plaintiff's claims under California law (his claims for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, False Arrest, Assault and Battery, and Trespass (you may refer to your answers to Questions Nos. 7 through 22 above)?

ANSWER:

JOSH ORDONEZ Yes No DAVID HAYDEN Yes No RAFAEL LOPEZ Yes No NOREEN HERBERT Yes No JAIME MARTINEZ Yes No GIOVANNI ESPINOZA Yes No

Dated: June 28, 2012 Signature: /s/

Foreperson of the Jury

JUDGMENT THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:

1. That judgment be, and hereby is, entered in favor of the Defendants and against the Plaintiff;

2. That the Plaintiff shall take nothing;

3. That the Defendants recover their costs of suit herein.

20120702

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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