Modification: B.B. v. County of Los Angeles

B.B., a Minor, etc., et al.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

T.E., a Minor, etc., et al.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

D.B., a Minor, etc., et al.,

Plaintiffs and Respondents,

v.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

No. B264946

Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. Nos. TC027341, TC027438, BC505918

California Courts of Appeal

Second Appellate District

Division Three

Filed August 9, 2018

THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on July 10, 2018, be modified as follows:

1. On page 3, the third sentence of the first full paragraph is deleted, and the following is inserted in its place:

"Accordingly, we will direct the trial court to vacate the judgment and enter a separate judgment against Deputy Beserra and the County and a separate judgment against Deputy Aviles and the County, holding them liable for the noneconomic damages award in an amount proportionate to the jury's comparative fault determinations."

2. On page 3, the first sentence of the last paragraph is deleted, and the following is inserted in its place:

"Plaintiffs B.B., B.B., and T.E. ("Cross-Appellants") filed a cross-appeal from the trial court's order granting Defendants summary adjudication on Cross-Appellants' claims for civil rights violations under Civil Code section 52.1."

3. The sentence beginning at the bottom of page 3, and continuing to the top of page 4, is deleted, and the following is inserted in its place:

"We conclude the summary adjudication order must be reversed as to the Cross-Appellants, because Cross-Appellants presented sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue as to whether the deputies acted intentionally in interfering with Burley's right to be free from unreasonable seizure."

4. On page 42, the first full sentence at the top of the page is revised as follows: "and the County" is added after "Aviles" (the beginning of the sentence shall read, "We agree, and will therefore direct the trial court to enter a separate judgment against Aviles and the County, . . . .").

5. On page 50, the last sentence before section "5." is deleted, and the following is inserted in its place:

"Because Deputy Aviles's liability is governed by section 1431.2, the judgment must be vacated and separate judgments must be rendered against (i) Deputy Beserra and the County and (ii) Deputy Aviles and the County, in direct proportion to each individual defendant's percentage of fault, as found in the jury's comparative fault determinations."

6. On page 50, the first sentence of the first paragraph of section "5." is revised as follows: "B.B., B.B., and T.E." is added after "Plaintiffs" and before "cross-appealed" (the beginning of the sentence shall read, "Plaintiffs B.B., B.B., and T.E. cross-appealed from the trial court's order . . . .)."

7. The sentence beginning at the bottom of page 50, and continuing to the top of page 51, is revised as follows: the word "Plaintiffs' " at the end of the sentence is replaced with "Cross-Appellants' " (the end of the sentence shall read, ". . . we conclude the court erred in granting summary adjudication against Cross-Appellants' Bane Act claims.").

8. On page 51, sub-heading "a." is deleted, and the following is inserted in its place: "a. Defendants were not entitled to summary adjudication on Cross-Appellants' Bane Act claims"

9. On page 52, the first sentence of the first full paragraph is deleted, and the following is inserted in its place:

"In their cross-appeal, Cross-Appellants argue the trial court fundamentally misread Shoyoye."

10. On page 52, the third sentence of the first full paragraph is deleted, and the following is inserted in its place:

"But where the civil rights violation is intentional, Cross-Appellants argue the statutory requirements of the Bane Act are met, even if coercion is inherent in the underlying violation."

11. On page 52, the last sentence of the first full paragraph is revised as follows: the word "Plaintiffs" at the beginning of the sentence is replaced with "Cross-Appellants" (the beginning of the sentence shall read, "We agree with Cross-Appellants . . . .").

12. The sentence beginning at the bottom of page 59, and continuing to the top of page 60, is revised as follows: the word "Plaintiffs" at the beginning of the sentence is replaced with "Cross-Appellants" (the beginning of the sentence shall read, "Here, Cross-Appellants presented . . . .").

13. The last full sentence in the body of page 60 is revised as follows: the word "Plaintiffs' " in mid-sentence is replaced with "Cross-Appellants' " (the middle of the sentence shall read, ". . . Cross-Appellants' evidence suggested Defendants . . . .").

14. On page 61, the last full sentence before sub-section "b." is revised as follows: the word "Plaintiffs" at the beginning of the sentence is replaced with "Cross-Appellants" and the word "Plaintiffs' " at the end of the sentence is replaced with "Cross-Appellants' " (those portions of the sentence shall read, "Because Cross-Appellants presented sufficient evidence . . . summary adjudication of Cross-Appellants' Bane Act claims.").

15. On page 65, the last sentence of the first paragraph of the "DISPOSITION" section is deleted, and the following is inserted in its place:

"On remand, the trial court is directed to vacate the judgment and enter a separate judgment against Deputy Aviles and the County and a separate judgment against Deputy Beserra and the County allocating noneconomic damages to each defendant and the County in direct proportion to each individual defendant's percentage of fault, as found in the jury's comparative fault determinations."

16. On page 65, the first sentence of the second paragraph of the "DISPOSITION" section is deleted, and the following is inserted in its place:

"The order granting summary adjudication to Defendants on Cross-Appellants' Civil Code section 52.1 claims is reversed, and the matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the principles expressed in this opinion."

There is no change in the judgment.

EDMON, P. J.

We Concur:

EGERTON, J.

DHANIDINA, J.^*

^* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.