Mary Talan and Michael Talan v. City of Los Angeles, et al.
Published: May 25, 1996 | Result Date: Apr. 2, 1996 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: LC013907 – $0
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Van Nuys
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
John A. Wright
(Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney)
Facts
On September 3, 1991, the defendant, Janice Eissler, was assaulted and her car was stolen by Dennis Talan. Immediately following the car-jacking, Eissler reported the incident to the defendant police department. The plaintiffs, Mary Talan, a 72-year-old woman, and her son, Michael Talan, a 37-year-old truck driver, are the mother and brother, respectively, of Dennis Talan, the individual who assaulted Eissler and car-jacked her vehicle. On September 5, 1991, two days after the car-jacking, Dennis Talan drove to plaintiff Mary Talan's house and told his mother he had borrowed the car from a friend to look for a job. A short while later, a Ventura sheriff's deputy came to the house and arrested Dennis on an unrelated warrant, leaving the car parked in front of Mary Talan's condominium. Mary went into the car for identification and found a phone number, which she called. Mary Talan telephoned the defendants, Janice Eissler and her husband John Meester. Defendant Eissler answered the telephone and Mary Talan thanked her for loaning the car to her son. Defendant Eissler told her that she had not loaned him the car, but that he had stolen it and had assaulted her. Mary terminated the call because defendant Eissler had become hysterical. She called again later, this time speaking to Meester. Mary Talan told Meester that Eissler's car was parked in front of her house and offered to pick him up and bring him to the car. Meester agreed, but immediately thereafter, called the police who advised him not to go. Meester met with officers of the defendant Los Angeles Police Department ("LAPD") after the second telephone call with Mary Talan. The defendant officers responded to the defendants' residence to investigate the telephone calls regarding the stolen car. Later that evening, Plaintiffs Mary and Michael Talan arrived at the Eissler/Meester residence. The plaintiffs wanted Eissler and Meester to ride with them in the plaintiffs' car to take them to their stolen vehicle. Eissler and Meester refused, but told the plaintiffs that they were willing to follow the plaintiffs in their own vehicle. The plaintiffs refused to allow the defendants to follow them in their own vehicle. As the plaintiffs left the residence, Mary Talan was arrested by the defendant officers for extortion. Michael Talan was detained by the defendant officers. The plaintiffs were held in jail for approximately three hours before they were released. The charges were subsequently dropped. At the time of the arrest, Meester allegedly stated that Mary Talan had told him over the phone that "the car would be returned if charges were dropped" against her son. Mary Talan denied having ever made such a statement and the defendants, Eissler and Meester, also denied it was ever said by Mary Talan. This alleged conversation was set forth in the arrest report. The arresting officers testified that Meester told them and another officer that Mary Talan had said Eissler and Meester could have their car back if they would drop the charges against her son). Mid-way through trial, the court found as a matter of law that the defendant officers had probable cause for the arrest of Mary Talan as she was in possession of stolen property from the car-jacked vehicle when she arrived at the defendants' residence and she refused to lead Meester to his wife's car. Mary Talan's only surviving claim against the defendant city and officers was for invasion of privacy. Before opening statements, the plaintiffs dismissed their claims against the defendant, Janice Eissler, as she made no statements to the police. The plaintiffs brought this action against the defendants based on false arrest, invasion of privacy and false imprisonment theories of recovery. Plaintiff Mary Talan's case went to the jury as to defendant Meester only. Before opening statements, Michael Talan dismissed his claim against defendant Meester, because Meester never said anything to the defendant officers about him.
Settlement Discussions
There were no settlement discussions.
Specials in Evidence
not in evidence and not claimed $___________ $_________
Damages
The plaintiffs asked the jury for $75,000 in compensatory damages and $500 for bail premium. The defendants suggested a defense verdict and no monetary award.
Injuries
The plaintiff, Mary Talan, alleged that she sustained emotional distresss as a result of the incident. The plaintiff, Michael Talan, alleged that he sustained emotional distress as a result of the incident.
Other Information
The verdict was reached approximately four years and two months after the case was field. A settlement confrence was held on April 1, 1996, before Judge Richard A. Adler which did not resolve the mater. Per the defendants, the issue of $1,000,000 in punitive damages against Meester was bifurcated on the court's own motion. Mary Talan's claim for invasion of privacy was settled during trial for $2,500 (per the defendants) and $3,000 (per the plaintiffs) in addition to a waiver of appeal rights. Michael Talan's claim against the city for false arrest was settled during trial for $15,000.
Deliberation
1+ hours
Poll
10-2
Length
8 days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390