|
FIRM SUCCESSFUL IN CITY OF DOWNEY SHOOTING CASE - CASE
CREATES NEW LAW ON ISSUE OF WHEN A PUBLIC ENTITY IS
REQUIRED TO INDEMNIFY THE ESTATE OF A DECEASED EMPLOYEE
On July 31, 2008, the United States District Court
granted summary judgment in favor of the City of Downey
and the estate of a former Downey police officer in a
case involving the non-fatal shooting of Plaintiff Peter
Pelayo on April 29, 2006. After refusing to comply with
officers’ commands that he pull over the vehicle he was
driving, the plaintiff led police on a chase down the
streets of Downey and finally on foot into the First
Baptist Church of Downey, where he barricaded himself in
a classroom and refused to surrender himself. When
police attempted to physically retrieve him from the
classroom, he ran out of the room holding a metallic
object in one of his hands. Downey police officer Jose
Llamas fired at the plaintiff, believing the object was
a gun. The plaintiff hid in the church for several hours
before police were able to extract him, and was later
convicted of resisting, obstructing or delaying Officer
Llamas under California Penal Code § 148(a)(1).
The plaintiff brought suit against the City and the
estate of Officer Llamas, who died prior to the
commencement of the lawsuit, alleging excessive force in
the shooting. At summary judgment, LBAC successfully
argued that the estate was not a proper defendant
because an estate is not a suable entity. LBAC also
successfully argued that a public entity has no duty to
indemnify the estate of a deceased employee under
California Government Code § 825 unless the
administrator of the estate or recipients of property
under the estate are named as defendants and request
indemnification by the entity. In addition, LBAC
successfully argued that the plaintiff’s conviction for
violation of Penal Code § 148(a)(1) precluded him from
bringing an excessive force claim.
The case is Pelayo v. City of Downey, 570
F.Supp.2d 1183 (C.D.Cal. 2008).
FIRM SUCCESSFUL IN APPEAL OF CITY OF
DOWNEY SHOOTING CASE
On July 28, 2008 the California Court of Appeal affirmed
a jury verdict entered in favor of the City of Downey in
a high profile “suicide by cop” wrongful death case,
Martinez v. City of Downey, et. al, Case No. BC 277402.
LBAC, with David Lawrence as trial counsel, had
previously obtained a defense verdict at trial after
successfully arguing that the decedent intentionally
precipitated his own death by provoking Downey police
officers to shoot him. The Court of Appeal rejected the
plaintiffs’ argument that there had been jury misconduct
during the trial.
FIRM SUCCESSFULLY APPEALS DENIAL OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN
WRONGFUL DETENTION CASE AGAINST THE COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES, ESTABLISHING NEW LAW ON QUASI-JUDICIAL
IMMUNITY
On June 19, 2008 the Ninth
Circuit reversed an order of the United States District
Court denying summary judgment to the County of Los
Angeles on claims of false imprisonment, negligence, and
California Civil Code § 52.1 brought by Plaintiff Jerome
Leslie Clemmons. The plaintiff claims he was arrested on
June 28, 2004 by the City of Long Beach on a warrant
issued for a “James Clemmons,” and that the City ignored
his complaints that he was not the subject of the
warrant. The City brought him to court the day following
his arrest, where the plaintiff did not bring the issue
of mistaken identity to the court’s attention. The court
issued an order remanding him to the custody of the Los
Angeles County Sheriff’s Department until July 19, 2004
pending the completion of a probation report. The
Sheriff’s Department, in obedience to the Superior
Court’s remanding order, held the plaintiff until July
19. The plaintiff claims his complaints of mistaken
identity were ignored by Sheriff’s Department personnel.
He was later released, and brought suit against the City
and County for false imprisonment.
At summary judgment, LBAC
argued that the County was immune from suit for false
imprisonment under the doctrine of quasi-judicial
immunity because, in detaining the plaintiff, the County
had been following a valid order of the Superior Court.
The District Court denied summary judgment as to the
plaintiff’s claims brought under state law, holding that
the County was under a duty to verify the plaintiff’s
identity notwithstanding the court order requiring the
County to detain him. The Ninth Circuit reversed,
holding that California Code of Civil Procedure § 262.1,
which provides that peace officers are justified in the
execution of all facially valid judicial orders,
provides immunity for a law enforcement agency holding
an individual whom the Superior Court has mistakenly
identified as the subject of an arrest warrant and,
because of the mistake, has ordered into its custody.
The case is Clemmons v.
County of Los Angeles, 283 Fed. Appx. 487 (9th Cir
2008).
Firm wins proposed class action
relating to impoundment of vehicles
Congratulations are in order for Jin Choi who recently
obtained orders from District Court Judge Otero in
Salazar v. Schwarzenegger, Case No. CV 07--01854 SJO (VBKx)
denying class certification and granting summary
judgment in favor of the County of Los Angeles. Among
other things, the District Court found that the
impoundment of vehicles under Vehicle Code section
14602.6 is a valid administrative penalty under state
law; that the challenged procedures do not violate
procedural due process; and that the phrase "mitigating
circumstances" (which are supposed to be considered when
vehicle owners seek release of their vehicles prior to
the lapse of 30 days) is not unconstitutionally vague.
Firm wins high profile “suicide by
cop” wrongful death trial
On January 18, 2007, a Norwalk jury returned a verdict
in favor of the City of Downey and two of its police
officers in a high profile “suicide by cop” wrongful
death case. The case was entitled Martinez v. City of
Downey, et. al, Case No. BC 277402.
The suit arose from a vehicle pursuit following an
attempt to stop Gonzalo Martinez [decedent] in the City
of Downey for suspected driving under the influence. The
pursuit entered the southbound Santa Ana Freeway (I-5)
at speeds approaching 100 MPH. Decedent lost control
while on a freeway transition and went off the road-way.
Officers approached the car on foot to arrest Martinez.
The decedent then tried to run down an officer with his
car prompting shots from three separate officers.
Decedent was apparently shot in the hand but was able to
maneuver back onto the freeway and continue the pursuit.
Eventually the Martinez car was rammed by a police car
causing it to lose control and collide with a parked car
on a city street. The Martinez car was pinned against
the parked vehicle by a police vehicle which had an
operating dash-mounted video camera.
A stand-off ensued, with decedent ignoring numerous
commands to exit the car, put his hands in the air and
surrender. During that time, the decedent smoked one or
more cigarettes.
Approximately eleven minutes after his car was pinned,
decedent opened the driver’s door and stepped out of the
car wearing an unzipped jacket and directly facing the
officers. Officers ordered Martinez to put his hands in
the air. Martinez raised his right hand which held a
cigarette and placed it in his mouth, freeing his right
hand. Decedent then reached with his right hand
underneath the rear portion of his jacket towards the
waistband area.
Believing that the decedent was reaching for a weapon,
three officers fired upon the decedent. One officer
fired fifteen rounds from an MP-5 sub-machine gun.
Another fired two “bean-bag” rounds and a third fired
one round from a .9 millimeter handgun, killing the
decedent. No weapon was found on the decedent.
The Plaintiffs [decedent’s parents] contended that the
dash-mounted videotape of the shooting and the
eyewitness testimony of a neighbor confirmed that the
decedent did not place his hand behind his back. A Los
Angeles County Sheriff’s helicopter observer testified
that he saw the decedent place his hand behind his back.
The video tape was inconclusive.
Decedent was on a deferred entry of judgment program as
a consequence of an arrest for possession of a
controlled substance three months prior to the incident.
The decedent also had two prior driving-under-the
influence arrests and an arrest for being drunk in
public. On the evening of the shooting, the parents came
to the police station to find out if the decedent was
their son. They reported that the decedent had an
alcohol problem for ten years and that they had
attempted to get him into a rehabilitation program. The
father also stated that the night before the shooting,
he had slapped his son out of frustration with his
drinking. The father also said that the decedent had
recently said “before I embarrass the family, I will
die.” At trial, the Plaintiffs denied having made these
statements.
Defense counsel David Lawrence
successfully argued that the decedent intentionally
precipitated his own death, i.e., “suicide by cop.”
FIRM WINS LONG-RUNNING FAIR
HOUSING CASE FOR CITY OF POMONA
On June 29, 2006, LBAC, with David Lawrence as trial
counsel, obtained a federal jury defense verdict in a
case alleging violations of various fair housing laws
under both state and federal law. At the crux of the
case was an attempt in the mid to late 90s by a Pomona
City Council person to assist an organization of
property owners in a drug and crime ridden area of
Pomona. The unofficial organization was dubbed “KKAPS”
which constituted the first letters of the streets
encompassing the area. The unofficial spokesman for KKAPS, Wilfred Keagy, was also a defendant but settled
prior to trial. The plaintiffs were an African America
property manager by the name of Grace Cross and a
non-profit fair housing organization known as Inland
Mediation Board. The plaintiffs claimed that the City
through it Councilperson, aided KKAPS and created an
apparent agency relationship by preparing KKAPS agendas
and mailers, sending them out on City stationary, having
City officials attend the meetings, arranging for a
place for the meetings to take place on City property
and by providing a variety of other services. The
plaintiffs claimed that the City, through KKAPS,
encouraged discrimination against African American
tenants by the use of “code words” such as the “wish
well list” which was a list of prior tenants of the area
who had either left without paying rent or under other
adverse circumstances. On one occasion, Mr. Keagy
allegedly made remarks at a meeting attended by Grace
Cross that African Americans should not be rented to
since they were the source of the problems in the
neighborhood. Ms. Cross, deceased at the time of trial,
claimed that she was frightened by the statements and
tenor of the meeting and moved away from Pomona as a
result. In addition to their direct claims of
discrimination, plaintiffs claimed disparate impact and
presented evidence of changes of racial composition in
the KKAPS area, which was rebutted by the defense
demographer. After ten days of trial, the federal jury
found in favor of the City on all claims. The City had
offered $100,000 to settle the case and the plaintiffs’
last demand was $1,048,579.
FIRM SUCCESSFUL IN U.S. SUPREME COURT IN MAJOR
EMPLOYMENT DECISION
top
In May of 2006, LBAC successfully
convinced the U.S. Supreme Court to rule in favor of the
County of Los Angeles, and reverse Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals in the case of Ceballos v. Garcetti.
Ceballos, an employee of the Los Angeles County District
Attorney's office, brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
alleging that County employees had retaliated against
him for exercising his First Amendment rights.
Specifically, Ceballos alleged that he was retaliated
against for a memorandum he drafted arguing that an
affidavit police used to obtain a critical search
warrant was inaccurate.
LBAC and the County prevailed in the preliminary stages
of the case after the District Court granted the
County's summary judgment motion, finding no protected
First Amendment speech interest in the memorandum
because Ceballos wrote it in a purely job-related
capacity, pursuant to his employment duties. The Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the
memorandum was entitled to First Amendment protection
because it was on a matter of public concern, and found
that Ceballos' speech interests outweighed the
government's interests in promoting workplace efficiency
and avoiding workplace disruption.
LBAC filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S.
Supreme Court which was granted. The case was argued
twice before the Supreme Court, first while former
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was on the bench and again
in March after Justice Samuel Alito Jr. took her place.
Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Ninth
Circuit's decision, holding that when public employees
make statements pursuant to their official duties, they
are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment
purposes and thus the Constitution does not insulate
their communications from employer discipline. Garcetti
v. Ceballos,126 S. Ct. 1951 (2006). This Supreme Court
victory has positive and far-reaching implications for
all of LBAC's clients!
PAUL BEACH NAMED IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SUPER LAWYERS
top
FOR
THIRD STRAIGHT YEAR
The firm is proud to announce that, as
recently reported in California Lawyer Magazine, Paul Beach
has been named in the Southern California Super Lawyers 2006
- Rising Stars Edition as one of the top young lawyers in
California. This is the third year in a row that Paul has
received this distinction. Paul was selected as a result of
a survey of Southern California’s Super Lawyers and law
firms in order to identify the top emerging lawyers in the
state.
FIRM WINS CLASS ACTION TRIAL FOR ORANGE COUNTY
top
AND ENDS 27
YEAR INJUNCTION
In November and December of 2004, David
Lawrence and Christina Sprenger represented the County of
Orange in a trial before the Honorable Gary L. Taylor in the
consolidated actions entitled Pierce v. County of Orange
, Case No. SACV 01-981 GLT(MLGx) and Stewart v. Gates,
450 F.Supp. 583 (C.D. Cal. 1978). The case was a class
action suite brought on behalf of all pre-trial detainees at
the Orange County jail alleging violations of the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) and its State law equivalent,
Title 15 and the 1978 Stewart injunction which
imposed inmate population limits on the jail and a variety
of restrictions relating to outdoor exercise, seating in
holding cells, time allotted to finish meals, visitation,
access to legal materials, day room access, access to
telephones, unsupervised visitation with minors, receipt of
mail, minimum sleep times before and after going to court,
access to blankets and the right to a bed within 24 hours of
arrival at the jail. At one point in the protracted
litigation, the court had certified a damages class action
in addition to an injunctive relief class action. The firm
was successful in getting the court to de-certify the
damages aspect of the class action before trial. Following a
bench trial, the Court issued its April 27, 2005 findings of
fact and conclusions of law in the Pierce matter, finding
that the plaintiffs had failed to prove any pervasive
violations. In a separate 23 page order, Judge Taylor
vacated the 1978 Stewart injunctions and dismissed
the case, noting that “the minimum standard Stewart
orders have outlived their time, and are unnecessary and no
longer appropriate.”
LAWRENCE
WINS RACIAL PROFILING CASE
top
On September 1, 2004, a federal jury
returned a defense verdict in favor of Manhattan Beach
Police Officer Robert Schreiber. The trial finished what
began as a racial profiling case against Schreiber, several
other officers, the City of Manhattan Beach and its Chief of
Police. In a lengthy opinion, United States District Court
Judge Margaret Morrow granted summary judgment in favor of
all defendants except Schreiber, the officer who initiated
the traffic stop. Both sides sought and were granted the
right to take interlocutory appeals. The cross-appeals
resulted in the Ninth Circuit upholding all of Judge
Morrow’s rulings. See
Bingham v. City of Manhattan Beach (9th Cir. 2003) 329
F.3d 723. The two day trial that followed featured the
testimony of Lonni Ali, the wife of Muhammad Ali. The
plaintiff is the life-long friend and personal photographer
of Ali. Muhammad Ali was in attendance during his wife’s
testimony and closing arguments.
FIRM RECEIVES UNANIMOUS DECISION BY CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
top
IN DEFAMATION CASE
On December 22, 2003, in a unanimous
decision, the state Supreme Court held that the accrual of a
cause of action for defamation was not delayed or otherwise
tolled by the so-called discovery rule, where the alleged
defamatory statements were republished in a mass media
forum. Reversing the Los Angeles-based 2nd District Court of
Appeal, the justices refused to give the plaintiff the
benefit of the discovery rule, which tolls the statute of
limitations in cases in which plaintiffs do not immediately
learn that they have been wronged. Plaintiff was a witness
in the O.J. Simpson murder case who sued her former
boyfriend and a Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney for
making alleged false statements that she was a "felony
probationer," and also brought libel and slander claims
against the author and publisher of a book that repeated
those statements. Her lawsuit, filed in October 1997,
however, was not filed until one year and one day after the
book containing the alleged defamatory statements was first
made available for sale in California. The trial court
dismissed the suit pursuant to the defendants' motion for
summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff missed the
one-year deadline, notwithstanding plaintiff's declaration
that she had not read the book and discovered the alleged
defamatory statements until December 1996. The 2nd District,
however, reinstated the suit. Chief Justice Ronald M.
George, writing for the Supreme Court, reversed the
appellate court decision, concluding that the one-year
deadline for filing a suit began to run on "the date the
book was first generally distributed to the public,
regardless of the date on which plaintiff actually learned
of the existence of the book and read its contents."
BEACH AND LAWRENCE NAMED ATTORNEYS OF THE YEAR
top
On June 26, 2003, Paul Beach was honored
at a reception held at the Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department. He has been named "Attorney of the Year" by the
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department for his excellence
in representing the Sheriff's Department and its personnel.
This was a repeat for the firm. David Lawrence received the
same award on May 5, 2000.
LAWRENCE WINS 13-YEAR OLD SUPERVISORY LIABILITY CASE
top
On January 9, 2004, David Lawrence
obtained a defense jury verdict for former Los Angeles
County Sheriff's Department officials in what seemed like a
battle that would never end. The case arose from the
February 8, 1991 arrest of Brett Thompson in which a
Sheriff's canine bit Mr. Thompson. The arrest was criticized
in the original Kolts report as an example of instances in
which additional force was used to subdue criminal suspects
who were bitten by and fought with the canines. Orders
granting defense motions for summary judgment were reversed
twice by the Court of Appeals, accounting for the length of
time required to get the matter to trial. By the time the
case was tried, plaintiff had dismissed all but high ranking
Sheriff's officials including the former Undersheriff.
Plaintiff proceeded against the remaining defendants on a
civil rights "failure to train and supervise" theory. After
almost five weeks of trial in the Central District of the
Los Angeles County Superior Court, a jury returned a defense
verdict with only one dissenting juror.
|
