Filed: Mar. 22, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 22, 2019
Summary: JUDGMENT ON REMAND MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD , District Judge . Following a trial to the Court, the Court entered its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Docket No. 250) and Judgment After Trial (Docket No. 256). On November 20, 2013, the Court ordered that attorney fees are awarded to Plaintiffs in the amount of $1,672,729.97 (Docket No. 280). The Court further orders, as stipulated by the parties, that legal expenses are awarded to Plaintiffs in the amount of $23,000. The Ninth Circui
Summary: JUDGMENT ON REMAND MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD , District Judge . Following a trial to the Court, the Court entered its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Docket No. 250) and Judgment After Trial (Docket No. 256). On November 20, 2013, the Court ordered that attorney fees are awarded to Plaintiffs in the amount of $1,672,729.97 (Docket No. 280). The Court further orders, as stipulated by the parties, that legal expenses are awarded to Plaintiffs in the amount of $23,000. The Ninth Circuit..
More
JUDGMENT ON REMAND
MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, District Judge.
Following a trial to the Court, the Court entered its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Docket No. 250) and Judgment After Trial (Docket No. 256).
On November 20, 2013, the Court ordered that attorney fees are awarded to Plaintiffs in the amount of $1,672,729.97 (Docket No. 280).
The Court further orders, as stipulated by the parties, that legal expenses are awarded to Plaintiffs in the amount of $23,000.
The Ninth Circuit has ordered that "the judgment shall be amended to award all damages arising from the shooting in the Mendezes' favor as proximately caused by the unconstitutional entry, and proximately caused by the failure to get a warrant" (Ninth Circuit Case Nos. 13-56686 & 13-57072 Docket No. 172-1).
The Ninth Circuit has further ordered that "Judgment shall also be entered in the Mendezes' favor on the California negligence claim for the same damages arising out of the shooting" (id.).
The damages arising out of the shooting, as previously determined by this Court, are as follows:
Plaintiff Angel Mendez
a. Past Medical Bills: $721,056.00
b. Future Medical Care:
i. Prosthesis upkeep & replacement: $407,000.00
ii. Future surgeries: $45,000.00
iii. Psychological care (5 years): $13,300.00
c. Attendant Care (4 hours/day at $12.00/hour): $648,240.00
d. Loss of Earnings: $241,920.00
e. Non-Economic Damages: $1,800,000.00
TOTAL: $3,876,516.00
Plaintiff Jennifer Lynn Garcia (now Jennifer Mendez)
a. Past Medical Bills: $95,182.00
b. Future Medical Care: $37,000.00
c. Non-Economic Damages: $90,000.00
TOTAL: $222,182.00
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows:
1. The Court's judgment on Plaintiffs' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for an unreasonable search based upon a warrantless entry in violation of the Fourth Amendment is amended to award all damages arising from the shooting in the Mendezes' favor as proximately caused by the unconstitutional entry, and proximately caused by the failure to get a warrant.
2. Judgment is also entered in the Mendezes' favor, jointly and severally, against Defendants County of Los Angeles, Conley, and Pederson on the California negligence claim for the same damages arising out of the shooting.
3. On Plaintiffs' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for excessive force (based on conduct at the moment of shooting) in violation of the Fourth Amendment: Judgment is entered in favor of Deputies Conley and Pederson.
4. On Plaintiffs' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for an unreasonable search based upon the failure to knock and announce in violation of the Fourth Amendment: Judgment is entered in favor of Deputies Conley and Pederson.
5. On Plaintiffs' claim for assault and battery: Judgment is entered in favor of the Defendants.
6. On Plaintiffs' claim for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Judgment is entered in favor of the Defendants.
7. Post-judgment interest shall accrue at the applicable rate from August 27, 2013 on the judgment (Docket No. 256) and from November 20, 2013 on the fee award (Docket No. 280).
