Facts

The plaintiff, Su Pak, claimed that on Aug. 16, 2003, between the hours of 11 a.m. and 12 p.m., he was shopping at Rite Aid Pharmacy in West Hollywood. As he was walking from the toothpaste aisle toward the front of the store, the plaintiff claimed that an African-American female employee of Rite Aid came up to him and accused him of stealing allergy eye drops.

The plaintiff claimed this female employee yelled to her co-worker Jorge to get the store manager, Dave because she had caught someone shoplifting. The plaintiff went on to claim that Jorge, Dave and the female employee repeatedly accused him of taking the merchandise and demanding that he give it back. After the plaintiff emptied out his pockets and offered to be searched, the store manager kicked him out of the store, instructing him that he was never to return adding that he was banned for life.

CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff claimed at trial that this detention and confrontation occurred solely because he was of Korean ancestry and that the African-American employee was retaliating against him as revenge for the shooting of Latasha Harlans by a Korean shopkeeper in the late 1990s. He further claimed that the statement that he was a shoplifter was defamatory. The plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to compensatory damages, punitive damages, a civil penalty of $4,000 and extensive attorney fees due to his civil rights being violated.

The defendant disputed that this incident ever occurred. No one matching the description given by the plaintiff was ever employed by the defendant at that Rite Aid Pharmacy. No past of present employee ever recalled such an incident even occurring at the store.

Even if an incident did occur, it was the defendant's position that there was no false imprisonment because the plaintiff admitted that he voluntarily remained in place while the accusations were made, that he made no attempt to walk out of the store and that he was free to walk around the store during the entire encounter.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff made a C.C.P. Section 998 demand of $4,000. That offer was rejected. From that point on the demand increased to $10,000. Defendant's C.C.P Section 998 offer of $1,500 was not made until year two of the litigation.

Specials in Evidence

$510 none $4,000 and attorney fees (statutory recovery under Civil Code Section 51). none

Injuries

Psychological trauma, with residual anxiety attacks.

Result

Defense verdict.

Other Information

Prior to submission of the case to the jury, the court bifurcated the case on the preliminary issue of whether or not the incident ever occurred at the Rite Aid Pharmacy. The jury answered this question "No" and the court entered judgment in defendant's favor. The defendant intends to seek costs, as well as its own attorney fees, pursuant to C.C.P. Section 128.7, C.C.P. Section 998 and C.C.P. Section 52.1 from plaintiff and his attorney. The court declined to instruct the jury on the instructions which pertained to suppression of evidence or failure to produce adverse evidence. The trial court excluded the plaintiff's discovery requests and refused the introduction of the court order which required defense counsel to make further production of evidence. The court also excluded plaintiff's security expert testimony.

Deliberation

40 minutes on a special finding that the incident did not happen at Rite Aid

Length

three days