Trent Childs v. City of Los Angeles et al
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|September 4, 2014
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Gary A. Feess: Order re: Remaining Claims. At the pre-trial conference, the parties indicated that some of the remaining claims would be dismissed and that the joint witness list would be shortened. (Docket No. 48. ) The Court prepared a pre-trial conference order regarding the claims that remained as of that date. Since the pre-trial conference, the Court received and ruled on the Bane Act claim, which the Court dismissed. Accordingly, the Court's docket now reflects the following claims for trial against the individual defendants in Phase 1: Fourth Amendment/Unlawful Detention: against all named individual defendants; Fourth Amendment/Excessive Force: against Officers Aride and Delery; State Law Bat tery by a Police Officer: against Officers Aride and Delery; and State Law False Arrest: against all named individual defendants. If the parties have agreed that some of these claims are not to proceed to trial, the parties need to advise the Court forthwith so that the Court can finish its preparation of the jury instructions and verdict form. (smo)
|September 3, 2014
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Gary A. Feess: Order Clarifying Pre-Trial Conference Order. This is to clarify the pre-trial conference order with respect to the bifurcation of proceedings. The Court in the first phase will instruct the jury on th e question of malice and oppression and ask the jury to make a finding on that question if they find liability on the part of any of the individual defendants. However, the Court will not permit any inquiry into issues of the financial condition of a ny individual defendant unless and until a jury determines that the defendant has engaged in conduct that would make him liable for punitive damages. Accordingly, the Court will include the Ninth Circuit jury instruction on malice and oppression, and will also include it as a question in the special verdict form to be answered if liability is found.The Court will shortly place on the Courts docket its draft instructions and verdict form. The parties should be prepared to discuss those documents on the day of trial. (smo)
|July 1, 2014
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Gary A. Feess: Order re: Bane Act Claim. The Court acknowledges that Bender takes a different view and distinguishes Shoyoyeand Gant on the ground that neither contained an excessive force claim. Referring to Gant a nd several other district court cases, Bender states that the cases "involve either unlawful arrests without excessive force, or otherwise lawful arrests accompanied or followed by the use of excessive force, or no Fourth Amendment violation at all." But that observation does not address the underlying question posed in Gant: was the statute directed at conduct already the subject of a remedial scheme, or was it meant to cover conduct and provide remedies where none had previously exis ted. This Courts review of Massachusetts law suggested that the legislature was seeking to achieve the latter objective, and Bender does not persuade this Court otherwise.For these reasons, the Bane Act claim is DISMISSED. See document for details. (smo)
|March 31, 2014
PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION by Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle. The Court Orders the terms of the parties Stipulated Protective Order Regarding Confidential Information. (22) (SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS) (gr)
Access additional case information on PACER
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
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.
Why Is My Information Online?