Richard Medina v. William Cooke, Debbie Cooke, et al.
Published: Feb. 18, 2004 | Result Date: Jul. 7, 2003 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: CV419846 – $0
Judge
Court
San Mateo Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Facts
Plaintiff Richard Medina sued William and Debbie Cooke for malicious prosecution. In the underlying action, Medina sued William Cooke, an off-duty police officer, after a fight broke out between the two men during the early morning hours of Feb. 3, 1998. The circumstances of the fight originated from a landslide which occurred near the Cookes residence during a heavy rainstorm. Medina was part of a Daly City Public Works crew called out to clear the landslide from the street. The Cookes claimed that Medina and his crew were causing waves of mud and water to flow onto their property as a result of their actions with a dump truck and backhoe. The Cookes attempted to save their property using shovels and brooms against the city workers' heavy equipment. Words were exchanged between the parties. At some point, a fight broke out between William Cooke, Richard Medina, and one of Medina's co-workers Randy Piccinini. William Cooke claimed that Medina started the fight by striking Cooke in the face with a shovel. Medina claimed that Cooke started the fight by striking him in the face with a shovel. Debbie Cooke claimed that during the course of the fight, Medina grabbed her and threw her to the ground. Medina subsequently filed a battery action against William Cooke. The Cookes cross-complained against Medina for battery. The Cookes were represented in the battery action by prior counsel. Medina was represented throughout litigation by William Spalding, Esq. The case proceeded to a jury trial, in which Medina prevailed on both his complaint and on the Cookes' cross-complaint. Medina then filed his malicious prosecution action against the Cookes and their prior counsel claiming that they lacked probable cause for filing their cross-complaint. Medina was again represented by Michael Spalding, Esq., the Cookes' prior counsel settled before trial. The Cookes were defended in the malicious prosecution action by Jeffrey Vucinich, Esq., In defense of the malicious prosecution action, the Cookes asserted that they had probable cause in bringing their cross-complaint against Medina. A court trial was held to determine the preliminary issue of probable cause.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff demanded $40,000. No settlement offer was made by defendants.
Damages
The plaintiff sought general and punitive damages.
Result
The trial court found for the defense.
Poll
12-0 (William Cooke had acted with malice and oppression)
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390