JUDGMENT

JOSEPHINE L. STATON, District Judge.

This action came on regularly for trial on May 23, 2017, in Courtroom 10A of the United States District Court, Central District of California located at 411 Fourth Street, Santa Ana, California, the Honorable Josephine L. Staton, presiding. Plaintiff Preslie Hardwick appeared by attorneys Robert R. Powell and Dennis Ingols. Defendants Marcie Vreeken, Elaine Wilkins, and the Estate of Helen Dwojak appeared by attorneys Norman J. Watkins and Pancy Lin. A jury of eight persons was regularly impaneled and sworn.

After hearing all of the evidence, the Court duly instructed the jury, and the cause was submitted to the jury. On June 5, 2017, the jury returned to the Court a unanimous Special Verdict in favor of Defendants Marcie Vreeken, Elaine Wilkins, and the Estate of Helen Dwojak as follows:

Question 1:

Did either defendant named below violate the rights of plaintiff with regard to the hearing held February 17th, 2000?

If you answered "yes" to either defendant, proceed to Question 2. If you answered "no" to both defendants, skip to Question 3.

Question 2:

Did Helen Dwojak violate the rights of plaintiff in her supervisory role over either Marcie Vreeken or Elaine Wilkins, with regard to the hearing held February 17th, 2000?

Whether you answered "yes" or "no" to Question 2, go to Question 3.

Question 3:

Did defendant Marcie Vreeken violate the rights of plaintiff with regard to the hearing held March 31st, 2000?

If you answered "yes" proceed to Question 4. If you answered "no" to this Question and "yes" to either defendant in Question 1, skip to Question 5. If you answered "no" to this Question and "no" in Question 1 as to all defendants, skip to the end, and sign and date this form.

Question 4:

Did Helen Dwojak violate the rights of plaintiff in her supervisory role over defendant Marcie Vreeken, with regard to the hearing held March 31st, 2000?

Whether you answered "yes" or "no" to Question 4, go to Question 5.

Question 5:

If you answered "yes" to any defendant in Question 1, Question 2, Question 3, or Question 4, as to that specific defendant, what is the amount of past and future emotional harm damages appropriate to fairly compensate the Plaintiff for any injury or harm?

If you gave an amount for damages in excess of $1 as to an individual defendant, for that defendant you do not need to answer Question 6. If you did not give an amount for damages as to a defendant, for that defendant, answer Question 6.

Question 6:

If you found in favor of the plaintiff against a defendant, but found that the plaintiff failed to prove damages as to that defendant, please enter the amount of nominal damages awarded to plaintiff for that defendant. Nominal damages may not exceed one dollar.

Question 7:

If you answered "yes" as to any defendant in response to Question 1, Question 2, Question 3, or Question 4, then as to that defendant, has the plaintiff proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant acted with malice, oppression, or in reckless disregard of any of the plaintiff's rights?

Defendant County of Orange was previously dismissed by Order granting summary judgment dated April 10, 2015.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED as follows:

2. Defendants may recover from Plaintiff their costs of suit in accordance with applicable law.

IT IS SO ORDERED.