This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Civil Rights
Due Process Violation
Unreasonable Seizure

Estate of Andy Lopez, by and through successors in interest, Rodrigo Lopez and Sujay Cruz, and Rodrigo Lopez and Sujay Cruz, individually v. Erick Gelhaus, County of Sonoma, Does 1 to 10, inclusive

Published: Feb. 1, 2019 | Result Date: Dec. 18, 2018 | Filing Date: Nov. 4, 2013 |

Case number: 4:13-cv-05124-PJH Settlement –  $3,000,000

Judge

Phyllis J. Hamilton

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Arnoldo Casillas
(Casillas & Associates)

Christian F. Pereira
(Casillas & Associates)


Defendant

James V. Fitzgerald III
(McNamara, Ney, Beatty, Slattery, Borges & Ambacher LLP)

Jesse F. Ruiz
(Messner Reeves LLP)


Facts

Rodrigo Lopez and Sujay Cruz filed a civil rights lawsuit against Deputy Erick Gelhaus and the County of Sonoma in relation to the death of their 13-year-old son, Andy Lopez.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that Gelhaus shot their son seven times when decedent was walking along the sidewalk and carrying an airsoft toy rifle even though deputies could tell he was a teenager. Furthermore, plaintiffs contended when the deputies called out to decedent, only three seconds passed before the first shot was fired. Similarly, plaintiffs claimed that decedent did not make any threatening gestures or movements. Additionally, plaintiffs contended that the Gelhaus has been known to recklessly draw his firearm and to use excessive force and that the county was aware of his tendencies. Plaintiffs also claimed that the county was aware of Gelhaus' racist tendencies.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied the contentions. Defendants claimed that the deputies had an objective reasonable belief that decedent posed an imminent threat of death or serious injury because they observed a person in an area known for gang activity carrying a gun resembling an AK-47. Defendants contended that decedent did not follow the deputies' demand to drop the gun. Instead, defense claimed, decedent turned towards the deputies with the barrel of the gun beginning to rise. Defendants claimed they believed the AK 47 was real, and fearing for his life, one deputy fatally shot decedent. Defendants argued that the deputy is entitled to qualified immunity.

Result

The parties reached a settlement for $3 million.


#130964

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390