United States District Court, C.D. California
Mag. Jacqueline Chooljian
HONORABLE DEAN D. PREGERSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
action came on regularly for trial on February 7, 2017, in
Courtroom “9C” 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
trial was bifurcated, with phase I addressing liability and
compensatory damages only.
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
ON SPECIAL VERDICT
JURY in the above-entitled action, unanimously find as
follows on the questions submitted to us:
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?
(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 _√__
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.
you answered “Yes” as to any Defendant, proceed
to Question No. 2.
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 ...