Manuel Martinez, et al. v. County of Los Angeles, et al.
Published: Jan. 25, 1997 | Result Date: Dec. 23, 1996 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: TC001309 – $52,550
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Compton
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Antonio H. Rodriguez
(Law Offices of Antonio H. Rodriguez)
Defendant
Experts
Plaintiff
James E. Mahone
(technical)
Maria E. Mayoral
(medical)
Michael J. Esposito
(medical)
Defendant
Jurg "Bill" Mattman
(technical)
Clarence R. Chapman
(technical)
Edward L. Workman
(technical)
Facts
On Apr. 25, 1990, plaintiff Manuel Martinez, a county welfare eligibility worker, entered the lobby of a welfare office in Rancho Dominguez after being out on an 11-month work absence due to a herniated disc. It was his first day on the job at that facility and he was familiar with the building. The plaintiff did not have a county photo identification card and the police officers at the welfare office did not know the plaintiff. Upon entering the facility, the defendants claimed that the plaintiff attempted to go around the metal detector, claiming that he was a county employee who was returning to work. The plaintiff claimed that he was summoned by defendant safety officer James Phillips and told to go to the end of the line and when he told the defendant that he was an employee returning to work, he was asked to show his identification card. Upon failing to produce a county identification (but offering the return to work letter), the plaintiff was allegedly instructed two or three times to proceed through the metal detector, by at least two different officers. The defendants claimed that the plaitiff nevertheless attempted to proceed around the detector. The plaintiff claimed that the officers pushed him twice and that three other officers then physically restrained and handcuffed him, and removed him from the lobby to the police office. The officers investigated and confirmed thatthe plaitiff was a county employee. Welfare supervisors and the officers' own supervisors requested that the plaintiff be released. The plaintiff claimed he was detained for over two hours, but admitted on cross-examination that the two-hour estimate was a guess. The plaintiff also claimed that while in the police office, one of the officers slammed his face onto a desk and threatened to kill him, such that he feared for his life. The plaintiffs, husband and wife, brought this action against the County of Los Angeles and five officers based on battery, excessive force, false imprisonment and loss of consortium theories of recovery.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff husband made an initial settlement demand of $600,000. The plaintiffs then made a joint settlement demand of $275,000. After the jury returned the verdict on liability, the plaintiff husband made a settlement demand of $370,000. The defendants made an offer of $10,000, raised to $20,000.
Specials in Evidence
$6,570 (workers' compensation) $1,100 $15,000 (psychotherapy)
Injuries
The plaintiff husband alleged he suffered emotional distress, requiring psychotherapy. He also alleged he suffered left shoulder separation; an additional herniated disc; and aggravation of the prior herniated disc, requiring physical therapy. The plaintiff further alleged that surgery was recommended for the herniated disc.
Other Information
ARBITRATION: An arbitration was held before Steven Sauer resulting in a defense award. The plaintiffs requested a trial de novo. OTHER INFORMATION: The court bifurcated the liability and damages portions of the trial, despite the plaintiffs' opposition. The court precluded expert testimony other than police practices experts until after the jury returned a verdict on liability against defendant Phillips. The court only permitted the plaintiffs' psychiatric expert to testify and excluded the testimony of the plaintiffs' orthopedic expert. The jury found that four of the five officers had not applied excessive force upon the plaintiff. The jury also found that none of the five officers had committed a battery upon the plaintiff; that the officers did not arresst the plaintiff without probable cause; and that four of the five officers had detained the plaintiff with reasonable cause. The jury concluded that defendant James Phillips had detained the plaintiff without reasonable cause once it was determined that the plaintiff was in fact a county employee. EXPERT TESTIMONY: The plaintiffs' police practices expert opined rthat the plaintiff's seizure by force, immediate handcuffing and confinement for two hours constituted an arrest without probable cause and was a detention of an unreasonable length and manner. He also tetsified that the one hour delay in madical treatment for the plaintiff after complaints of pain was unreasonable. The defendants' expert testified that the plaintiff's seizure was a temporary detention, not an arrest; that the time and manner of the detention was reasonable; and that the delay in medical traetment was not unreasonable. POST TRIAL MOTIONS: The plaintiffs have requested a retrial of the violation of civil rights action against defendant McMuray based on use of unreasonable force.
Deliberation
5 days
Poll
10-2 (liability); 10-2 (damages).
Length
12 weeks
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390