Troy J Dugan v. County of Los Angeles et al
| Troy J Dugan |
| Deputy Bender, County of Los Angeles, Does, Deputy Nance and Deputy Roth |
| 2:2011cv08145 |
| September 30, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Stephen J. Hillman |
| Otis D Wright |
| Civil Rights: Other |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
286
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder: Defendants' Ex Parte Application to Stay Execution of Judgment 280 is DENIED. However, this denial is without prejudice to the application being renewed in conjunction with: (1) a showing tha t execution of the punitive damages portion of the judgment would result in defendants suffering irreparable harm; and (2) appropriate assurances from defendant that they will not dissipate their assets during the pendency of the appeal. Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)
|
|
Filing
271
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder: Defendants' motion to stay execution of the judgment without the posting of a supersedeas bond 265 is DENIED. Additionally, since the Court finds that waiver of the requirement of posting such a bond is not appropriate, defendants' ex parte application to stay execution of the judgment until their motion is heard in June 266 is also DENIED. Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)
|
|
Filing
229
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder: Defendants' Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law 221 is DENIED. Defendants' Motion for a New Trial 222 is also DENIED. Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)
|
|
Filing
220
JUDGMENT by Judge Christina A. Snyder: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: (1) Plaintiff Troy J. Dugan shall have and recover $850,000 in compensatory damages jointly and severally from defendants Christopher Nance, Brett Binder, and Joh n Stanley. (2) Plaintiff Troy J. Dugan shall have and recover $50,000 in punitive damages from defendant Christopher Nance. (3) Plaintiff Troy J. Dugan shall have and recover $50,000 in punitive damages from defendant Brett Binder. (4) Plaintiff Troy J. Dugan shall have and recover $50,000 in punitive damages from defendant John Stanley. (5) The judgment shall accrue interest from the date it is filed, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1961. (gk)
|
|
Filing
207
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING REGARDING OTHER ACTS EVIDENCE AND PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS by Judge Christina A. Snyder: On 8/16/2013, plaintiffs filed supplemental briefing requesting the admission of prior acts of def endants Binder and Nance 205 . Plaintiff also proposed two jury instructions. The Court hereby DENIES plaintiff's request to introduce evidence of defendants' prior acts, and DECLINES to adopt plaintiff's proposed jury instructions. Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)
|
|
Filing
190
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder RE: Defendants' Request for Clarification 185 ; Order Re Evidentiary Issues. On 7/25/2013, defendants filed a request for clarification regarding the Court's ruling, per Judge Wright, on p laintiff's third motion in limine 151 . Additionally, at a hearing outside the presence of the jury on 7/26/2013, the parties disputed the admissibility of (1) prior acts of excessive force allegedly committed by defendants, and (2) a Sheriff&# 039;s Department disciplinary investigation, File Number IAB 2215819, regarding Nance. The Court provides the following clarification: its earlier ruling, granting plaintiff's motion in limine, prevents defendants from making any reference to th e Robbins interview or introducing evidence about what was said during the interview. Because plaintiff's claims do not arise out of the interview, but instead arise out of the events discussed during that interview, this order is not unfairly p rejudicial or overbroad. Defendants' retain the ability to introduce evidence and argue that no excessive force was used and no false or malicious reports were filed regarding the incident underlying this case. They merely cannot rely upon evide nce concerning the interview to make their case. The Court's ruling was therefore appropriately tailored to deny defendants the fruits of any spoliation of evidence while not interfering with their right to mount a defense to plaintiff's cl aims. The Court hereby concludes that: (1) defendants may not introduce evidence regarding Stanley's interview with Robbins, (2) evidence concerning prior uses of excessive force will not be admitted into evidence, and (3) plaintiff may inquire into Nance's disciplinary investigation on cross-examination and use documentation of that investigation for the limited purpose of refreshing Nance's recollection, but not to prove that the investigation took place. Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)
|
|
Filing
180
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder: Defendants' Motions in Limine are hereby GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Defendants' motion to exclude testimony regarding other incidents of excessive force 112 is GRANTED. Otherwise, defendants' motions 105 , 106 , 175 , AND 176 are DENIED. Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)
|
|
Filing
65
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 54 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: This Motion is DENIED. Should the parties desire to dismiss certain Defendants from this action, they are advised to file a separate request for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). SEE ORDER FOR COMPLETE DETAILS. (jre)
|
|
Filing
40
PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Stephen J. Hillman re Stipulation for Protective Order 39 (sbu)
|
|
Filing
30
ORDER by Judge Otis D Wright, II: Defendants motion is DENIED with respect to Plaintiffs first claim and punitive damages 26 . Plaintiffs second claim for Monell liability is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. If so desired, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint by April 23, 2012 solely to correct the deficiencies in the Monell claim. (lc) Modified on 4/9/2012 (lc).
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
