Facts

On July 3, 2016, Pedro Villanueva (the decedent) drove away from a sideshow in Santa
Fe Springs in a Silverado truck with his passenger, Francisco Orozco. Undercover California Highway Patrol ("CHP") Officers John Cleveland and Richard Henderson pursued Villanueva and Orozco in an undercover vehicle after observing Villanueva perform donuts in the Santa Fe Springs Swap Meet parking lot.

The vehicle pursuit initiated when Villanueva reversed the truck toward the undercover CHP vehicle in the parking lot and then exited the parking lot without stopping in response to the undercover officers' attempt to get his attention. The undercover officers pursued the Silverado and observed Villanueva commit moving traffic violations. The pursuit ended when the Silverado reached a dead end, where Villanueva maneuvered the Silverado out of the dead end and struck a parked car in the process.

The undercover officers exited their vehicle and drew their weapons. Officer Henderson fired 12 shots at the Silverado and Villanueva, and Sgt. Cleveland fired two shots from his position by the curb. When the shots started, Villanueva was straightening out the Silverado as part of the turn. The shots struck Villanueva, killing him, and Orozco was also struck by shots in his arm. As a result of being shot, Villanueva lost control of the Silverado, which moved forward and struck the police vehicle.

After the shooting, the officers forced Orozco to keep his hands up and also handcuffed him, even though he had been shot in the arm.

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on June 22, 2018.

On Jan. 31, 2019, the district court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment in large part.

Defendants appealed the denial of qualified immunity to the defendant officers, and on Jan. 28, 2021, the Ninth Circuit issued an order affirming the district court's denial of qualified immunity and denial of summary judgment.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs maintained excessive force pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983; unreasonable detention and arrest under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 (as to Orozco's detention after the shooting); interference with familial relations under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment; battery; and negligence.

Plaintiffs alleged that the shooting was excessive and unreasonable and negligent because there was no immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury to any person at the time of the shooting. Plaintiffs contended that there was no person in the Silverado's path, or potential path, at the time of the shooting, and that the shooting violated basic police training and department policy that discouraged shooting at vehicles and their drivers.

Plaintiffs contended that Villanueva and Orozco were unaware that they were being pursued by law enforcement, including prior to leaving the parking lot, and that they were afraid that they were being mugged. Plaintiffs further contended that the officers engaged in pre-shooting negligent tactics, including failing to conduct a proper high-risk felony stop, failing to wait for backup, approaching a driver-occupied vehicle on foot, failing to give appropriate commands, failing to identify themselves as police officers prior to shooting, and violating their training that discourages shooting at vehicles or their drivers.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied plaintiffs' allegations in their entirety.

Settlement Discussions

Prior to the Ninth Circuit's Jan. 31, 2021, ruling affirming the district court's denial of summary judgment and qualified immunity, defendants made no offer to settle the case. After the appeal resolved in plaintiffs' favor, the parties participated in a successful mediation with the Hon. Joseph Hilberman.

Injuries

As a result of the shooting, Pedro Villanueva endured pain and suffering and ultimately lost his life and earning capacity. Plaintiffs Armando Villanueva and Hortencia Sainz lost their son's (Pedro Villanueva) love, companionship, guidance, etc., as a result of the shooting. Also as a result of the shooting, Orozco endured pain and suffering, permanent physical injuries, emotional distress from the physical injuries, scarring, and reduced earning capacity.

Result

The case settled for $5 million