JUDGMENT

DEAN D. PREGERSON, District Judge.

This action came on regularly for trial on February 7, 2017, in Courtroom "7C" 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 matter.

The trial was bifurcated, with phase I addressing liability and compensatory damages only.

A jury 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 follows:

JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL VERDICT

WE, THE JURY in the above-entitled action, unanimously find as follows on the questions submitted to us:

QUESTION 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?

If 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. If you answered "Yes" as to any Defendant, proceed to Question No. 2.

QUESTION 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 in Question No. 1, do not answer Question No. 2 with respect to that Defendant.)

Please proceed to Question No. 3.

QUESTION NO. 3: Has Plaintiff Medjes proved by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the following Defendants failed to intervene to prevent a violation of his Fourth Amendment Constitutional Rights?

If you answered "No" as to each of the Defendants, please proceed to Question No. 5.

If you answered "Yes" as to any Defendant, proceed to Question No. 4.

QUESTION NO. 4: For each "Yes" response you gave to Question No. 3, 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 in Question No. 3, do not answer Question No. 4 with respect to that Defendant.)

Please proceed to Question No. 5.

QUESTION NO. 5: Only answer the following question if you gave any "Yes" responses to Question Nos. 2 or 4. If you gave only "No" responses to Question Nos. 2 and 4, please date and sign this form where indicated below.

Has Plaintiff Medjes proved by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the following Defendants acted with malice, fraud or oppression?

Please date and sign below, and return this form to the Court. Thank you.

JUDGMENT IS HEREBY ENTERED IN FAVOR OF ALL DEFENDANTS ON ALL CLAIMS.

IT IS SO ORDERED.