French et al. v. City of Los Angeles et al.

Excessive Force, Civil Rights Violation, Shooting Death By Police Officer

Central District

U.S. District Judge Jesus G. Bernal

Plaintiffs Attorney: Law Offices Of Dale K. Galipo, Dale K. Galipo, Eric Valenzuela, Renee V. Masongsong

Defense Attorneys: Los Angeles City Attorney's Office, Colleen R. Smith, Cory M. Brente, Kathleen A. Kenealy, Rebekah Young; Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith Llp, Andrew C. Hubert, Dana A. Fox, Matthew P. Harrison, Dawn M. Flores-Oster

Dale K. Galipo

When an off-duty Los Angeles Police Department police officer shot and killed an unarmed, mentally handicapped young man and wounded his parents at a Costco in Riverside County, litigation seemed a certainty. The tricky issue in the case was how to hold the city of Los Angeles liable for the officer's conduct.

Success came this past October, when a federal jury in Riverside said the city should pay the man's injured parents a bit more that $17 million dollars. French v. City of Los Angeles, 5:20-cv-00416 (C.D. Cal., filed Feb. 28, 2020).

The bizarre incident that led to the case made headlines across the country. While in line for sausage samples at a Costco in Corona, Kenneth French apparently struck or slapped LAPD Officer Salvador Sanchez on the head from behind. Allegedly fearing he'd been shot, Sanchez went down on the floor, announced he was a cop and fired 10 rounds at the retreating French family. He hit the son four times, killing him, and he seriously injured both parents.

Although Kenneth French had no formal diagnosis, he was mentally handicapped, according to his parents' lead attorney, Dale K. Galipo. How or why the young man hit the officer cannot be known.

"Kenneth was nonviolent. They had never seen him strike anyone before," Galipo said. "[Sanchez] totally overreacted and went into crazy cop mode."

The only store video of the incident was poor quality and from a distance. So Galipo brought in a forensic animation company to reconstruct from that video and interviews what likely happened. "I think it was very helpful" for the jury, he said.

The plaintiffs' team had enough undisputed evidence for the judge to rule as a matter of law that Sanchez' use of force was excessive and unreasonable.

That left the jury to decide whether he was acting under color of law and within the course and scope of his employment as an LAPD officer and if so, whether the city was liable.

Facts against the plaintiffs were that Sanchez was off duty, out of uniform, outside his jurisdiction, and shopping with his family.

Galipo countered that Sanchez' gun, holster and ammunition were approved by the LAPD. Department policy allowed him to carry and use the gun off duty. The department investigated the shooting as it would any other officer-involved shooting and then terminated Sanchez.

Further, Sanchez believed he was acting as a cop. He announced as much before and after the shooting, and he showed his badge to first responders.

The jury deliberated for just one afternoon before finding against the city. Posttrial motions are pending.

Cases holding off-duty officers responsible for shootings aren't common, Galipo said, so this verdict may send a message to governments. "I really think that this is a unique case that may be precedent setting."

Cory Brente from the city attorney's office did not respond to an email requesting comment on the verdict. Dana Fox, one of the officer's attorneys, responded briefly to the email but did not return a call for comment.

- Don DeBenedictis