Filed: Feb. 01, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 01, 2019
Summary: JUDGMENT JOHN A. KRONSTADT , District Judge . After a Jury Trial conducted on January 8-11, and 15, 2019, the Jury rendered a verdict against plaintiff, Scott Stoner ("Plaintiff"), and in favor of defendants Richard Fransik ("Fransik") and the County of Riverside on all remaining, operative claims and causes of action brought by Plaintiff. Specifically, the jury answered the first two questions on the verdict form as follows: Question 1: Did Corporal Richard Fransik use excessive or unr
Summary: JUDGMENT JOHN A. KRONSTADT , District Judge . After a Jury Trial conducted on January 8-11, and 15, 2019, the Jury rendered a verdict against plaintiff, Scott Stoner ("Plaintiff"), and in favor of defendants Richard Fransik ("Fransik") and the County of Riverside on all remaining, operative claims and causes of action brought by Plaintiff. Specifically, the jury answered the first two questions on the verdict form as follows: Question 1: Did Corporal Richard Fransik use excessive or unre..
More
JUDGMENT
JOHN A. KRONSTADT, District Judge.
After a Jury Trial conducted on January 8-11, and 15, 2019, the Jury rendered a verdict against plaintiff, Scott Stoner ("Plaintiff"), and in favor of defendants Richard Fransik ("Fransik") and the County of Riverside on all remaining, operative claims and causes of action brought by Plaintiff. Specifically, the jury answered the first two questions on the verdict form as follows:
Question 1:
Did Corporal Richard Fransik use excessive or unreasonable force against Scott Stoner?
YES __x__ NO _____
Question 2:
Was Corporal Richard Fransik's use of excessive or unreasonable force the moving force in causing harm to Scott Stoner?
YES _____ NO __x__
The verdict form was signed and dated, and the verdict was entered following a poll of each of the eight jurors as to the verdict.
Prior to submission of the case to the jury, orders were entered granting stipulations by the parties to dismiss with prejudice all of Plaintiff's claims against defendant Deputy Michael Heuer and to dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff's third cause of action for negligence against Fransik and the County of Riverside.
Therefore, it is hereby determined that judgment is entered in this action as follows:
1. As to the First Claim for Relief — Unreasonable Use of Force/Excessive Force — pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 by Plaintiff against Fransik and Heuer, in favor of the defendants. Plaintiff shall recover nothing as to this claim.
2. As to the Second Claim for Relief — Battery — pursuant to Cal. Gov't Code §§815.2(a), 820(a) and Cal. Civ. Code §43, by Plaintiff against defendants County of Riverside, Fransik and Heuer, in favor of the defendants. Plaintiff shall recover nothing as to this claim.
3. As to the Third Claim for Relief — Negligence — pursuant to Cal. Gov't Code §§ 815.2(a), 820(a) by Plaintiff against defendants County of Riverside, Fransik and Heuer, in favor of the defendants. Plaintiff shall recover nothing as to this claim.
4. Defendants shall recover from the Plaintiff their costs of action, taxed in an amount to be determined upon the filing and approval of the appropriate application.
IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.
