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.

Medjes v. Wunder

United States District Court, C.D. California

March 8, 2017

IAN MICHAEL MEDJES, Plaintiffs,
v.
LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICERS WUNDER, WINGER, WHITELAW, RAMIREZ, MORALES, NALBORZCYK, BAYONA, JEPPSON, NAKAMURA, DUYANEM, SADANAGA, PROSSER, MARAVILLA, TAGG; KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS; DR. GARO BALKIAN, MD, and DOES 1-10, Defendants.

          JUDGMENT

          HONORABLE DEAN D. PREGERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

         This action came on regularly for trial on February 7, 2017, in Courtroom “7C” of the United States District Court, Central District of California, Central Division, the Honorable Dean D. Pregerson, Judge Presiding. The Plaintiff IAN MICHAEL MEDJES, was represented by attorney Larry A. Peluso. The Defendants MANDEE DUYANEN, JAMES JEPPSON, FRANCISCO MARAVILLA, ELIMELEC LEMUS-MORALES, CORY NAKAMURA, MICHAEL NALBORCZYK, DET. DEBBIE PROSSER, GUS RAMIREZ, DET. MARIE SADANAGA, LISA TAGG, MATTHEW WHITELAW, SGT. DOUGLAS WINGER and SGT. CHARLES WUNDER were present and represented by attorneys Colleen R. Smith and Lisa W. Lee. Defendant KEVIN BAYONA is hereby dismissed with prejudice from this matter.

         The trial was bifurcated, with phase I addressing liability and compensatory damages only.

         A jury of 8 persons was regularly impaneled and sworn on February 7, 2017. Witnesses were sworn and testified. On February 14, 2017, following the presentation of evidence and argument during a jury trial which concluded February 14, 2017, the jury, in the above-entitled action, UNANIMOUSLY found as follows:

         JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL VERDICT

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

         QUESTION NO. 1: Has Plaintiff Medjes proved by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the following Defendants violated his Fourth Amendment Constitutional Rights by using excessive force against him?

         Answer (check “Yes” or “No”) following the name of each Defendant:

FRANCISCO MARAVILLA YES ___NO ___•
ELIMELEC LEMUS-MORALES YES ___NO ___•
MICHAEL NALBORCZYK YES ___ NO ___•
GUS RAMIREZ YES ___ NO ___•
LISA TAGG YES ___ NO ___•
MATTHEW WHITELAW YES___ NO ___•
CHARLES WUNDER YES___ NO ___•

         If you answered “No” as to each of the Defendants, please date and sign this form where indicated below and return to the form to the Court. If you answered “Yes” as to any Defendant, proceed to Question No. 2.

         QUESTION NO. 2: For each “Yes” response you gave to Question No. 1, do you find that Plaintiff Medjes has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Defendant's conduct was the cause of injury to him? (If you responded “No” with respect to a particular Defendant ...


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.