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

CASE NAME: Rusanovskaya et al. v. City of Los Angeles et al.

TYPE OF CASE: Wrongful death

COURT: Los Angeles County Superior Court

JUDGE(S): Judge Valerie Salkin

DEFENSE LAWYERS: Burke, Williams & Sorensen LLP, Nathan A. Oyster, Caylin W. Jones

PLAINTIFF LAWYERS: Panish Shea Ravipudi LLP, Spencer R. Lucas, Nicholas W. Yoka

After a 31-year-old mentally ill Ukrainian man wielding a large knife was fatally shot by police in a Tarzana intersection in 2020, his grieving parents sued Los Angeles officials for $20 million.

Just four months before trial, the city hired the public agency law firm Burke, Williams & Sorensen LLP to helm the defense. Despite extremely sympathetic parents represented by a powerful plaintiff firm, Burke Williams partner Nathan A. Oyster and associate Caylin W. Jones persuaded jurors to return a defense verdict.

"We showed it is possible to obtain a defense verdict on behalf of a law enforcement agency in the post-George Floyd era," Oyster said. "This was a career-defining case, the single most rewarding case of my career." Rusanovskaya et al. v. City of Los Angeles et al., 20STCV46024 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Dec. 2, 2020).

"When I deposed the decedent's parents, I saw that they had a compelling story and an extremely close relationship with their son," Oyster said. "There were tragic facts and elite-level competition as opposing counsel. It was clear there was going to be a difficult emotional component to the case."

The deposition testimony and evidence helped Oyster develop a suicide-by-cop theory to explain Alex Rusnovskiy's acts the day he died. And he made a key tactical decision to avoid any cross-examination of the victim's parents, Irina and Sergey Rusanovskaya. That allowed the defense to present a coherent trial theory that reassured jurors it was acceptable to sympathize with the plaintiffs even though the police actions were reasonable and necessary.

CAYLIN W. JONES

"We had enough testimony from other family members, I realized, so that if I get up and say 'No questions' regarding the parents, it would send a clear message that we were not attacking them. That let the jury feel compassion and still buy into our reasonableness arguments," Oyster said. "It clearly worked out for us to not cross the mother and father."

Meanwhile, Jones handled pretrial motion work and briefed issues as they arose mid-trial. "At one point, the plaintiffs wanted to recall a witness officer to the stand, and we opposed it," she said. "They eventually agreed to drop the issue."

The jury took a day and a half to decide. "Longest day and a half of my life," Oyster said. "I really sweated it out."

Nicholas W. Yoka, one of the plaintiff lawyers, emailed that even though they lost, "It was important to the parents of Mr. Rusanovskiy to have a jury hear this case, not only to tell the story of their son, but also to show that more should be done by law enforcement to use reasonable, nonlethal alternatives when responding to calls involving a person in mental distress. Despite the outcome, we are grateful to live in a country that allowed this case to be heard by a jury of our peers."

--John Roemer