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
Excessive Force
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

Riley Manford, Nick Regalia v. City of San Luis Obispo

Published: Apr. 2, 2021 | Result Date: Nov. 12, 2020 |

Case number: Case Not Filed Settlement –  $70,000

Attorneys

Plaintiff

James McKiernan
(James McKiernan Lawyers)


Defendant

Jacquelyn Christine Dietrick
(Office of the San Luis Obispo City Attorney)


Facts

Three officers answered an emergency call reporting a burglary on Santa Rosa Street in San Luis Obispo. The
reported location was near Riley Manford's residence. As officers arrived, the reporting party told them there was a loose pit bull on the property, which the officers saw and heard barking as they moved up the driveway to the residence.
Manford appeared and she and the responding officers discussed the call that a neighbor had seen someone exiting through a second floor window and whether there was a burglary. Manford said she was the one exiting through a window she was fixing. The pit bull was loose and not verbally controlled during the conversation, and eventually one of the officers shot three shots at Manford's pit bull. Two shots hit the dog and it ran inside the house and later died.
Manford's partner Nick Regalia exited the house after the dog ran into the house. Manford and her partner Regalia then both sued the police officers for the loss of their dog, emotional distress and other alleged damages.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that defendants were not properly trained on how to respond to animals in the field. Moreover, plaintiffs alleged their dog did not charge defendants to scare them or justify them shooting the dog as if it was uncontrollable. Therefore, plaintiffs contended that defendants were liable to plaintiffs for shooting their dog.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied the contentions. Defendants instead contended that plaintiffs' dog was barking and charging at the officer as he backed away and that plaintiffs made no attempt to control the dog, despite multiple requests from defendants, all of which defendants asserted was captured on body camera footage. The officer only
fired at the dog in self defense after it charged at the officer and was very near him. Thus, defendants contended they were not liable to plaintiff.

Result

The parties entered a $70,000 settlement agreement, allocated between the two plaintiffs.


#136873

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

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