Dayo Olufade v. Ulmer, CV-12-09269-BRO. (2014)
Court: District Court, C.D. California
Number: infdco20140313908
Visitors: 24
Filed: Mar. 12, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 12, 2014
Summary: JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL VERDICT BEVERLY REID O'CONNELL, District Judge. This action came on regularly for trial on February 12, 2014, in Courtroom 14, of the United States District Court, Central District of California before the Honorable Beverly Reid O'Connell presiding; the Plaintiff appearing by attorney Joseph Y. Avrahamy, and the Defendants appearing by attorneys Michael R. Amerian. A jury of 7 persons was regularly impaneled and sworn. Witnesses were sworn and testified. After hearing the
Summary: JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL VERDICT BEVERLY REID O'CONNELL, District Judge. This action came on regularly for trial on February 12, 2014, in Courtroom 14, of the United States District Court, Central District of California before the Honorable Beverly Reid O'Connell presiding; the Plaintiff appearing by attorney Joseph Y. Avrahamy, and the Defendants appearing by attorneys Michael R. Amerian. A jury of 7 persons was regularly impaneled and sworn. Witnesses were sworn and testified. After hearing the e..
More
JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL VERDICT
BEVERLY REID O'CONNELL, District Judge.
This action came on regularly for trial on February 12, 2014, in Courtroom 14, of the United States District Court, Central District of California before the Honorable Beverly Reid O'Connell presiding; the Plaintiff appearing by attorney Joseph Y. Avrahamy, and the Defendants appearing by attorneys Michael R. Amerian.
A jury of 7 persons was regularly impaneled and sworn. Witnesses were sworn and testified. After hearing the evidence and arguments of counsel, the jury was duly instructed by the Court and the cause was submitted to the jury with directions to return a verdict on special issues. The jury deliberated and thereafter returned into court with its verdict consisting of the issues submitted to the jury and the answers given thereto by the jury, with said verdict was in words and figures as follows, to-wit:
VERDICT
1. Has Plaintiff Dayo Olufade proven by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the following Defendants violated his Fourth Amendment Constitutional Rights by unlawfully arresting him?
OFFICER TIMMONS Yes X No _____________
OFFICER ULMER Yes No _______X_____
VOTE: YES 7-0
If you answered "No" as to each of the Defendants, please skip the remaining questions and sign and date the Special Verdict Form. If you answered "Yes" as to any Defendant, proceed to Question No 2.
2. If you answered "Yes" to Question No. 1, do you find that Plaintiff Dayo Olufade has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the Defendants' conduct caused injury to him?
OFFICER TIMMONS Yes X No _____________
OFFICER ULMER Yes No _______X_____
VOTE: YES 7-0
If you answered "No" as to each of the Defendants, please skip the remaining questions and sign and date the Special Verdict Form. If you answered "Yes" as to any Defendant, proceed to Question No 3.
3. What is the total amount of damages that you find Plaintiff Dayo Olufade has proven by a preponderance of the evidence?
$ 10,000.00
_____________
VOTE: YES 7-0
Please proceed to Question No. 4.
4. Has Plaintiff Dayo Olufade proven by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the following Defendants acted with malice, oppression or reckless disregard of his rights?"
OFFICER TIMMONS Yes No _______X_____
OFFICER ULMER Yes No _______X_____
VOTE: YES 7-0
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
That Plaintiff Dayo Olufade takes $10,000.00 from Defendant Jared Timmons and nothing from Defendant Paul Ulmer.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
