T.D.W. et al v. Riverside County et al
| K. W., T. D. W. and B. D. R. |
| Riverside County, Does and Riverside County Sheriff's Deputies |
| 5:2008cv00232 |
| February 21, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Eastern Division - Riverside Office |
| Riverside |
| John Charles Rayburn |
| Christina A. Snyder |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
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
170
ORDER by Judge Christina A. Snyder DENYING Plaintiffs Motion for New Trial 155 and DENYING Defendants Rule 50 Motions. (jp)
|
|
Filing
152
JUDGMENT by Judge Christina A. Snyder: JUDGMENT is entered in favor of defendants Armando Portales, Juvien Galzote, Isaac Perez, Andrew Sullivan, and the County of Riverside, and against Plaintiffs B.D.R. and K.W., together with costs of suit pursuant to a Memorandum of Costs to be filed. (gk)
|
|
Filing
78
MINUTES OF Motion Hearing held before Judge Christina A. Snyder: The Court GRANTS defendants' motion in limine no. 1 51 to the extent that it seeks to exclude evidence of privileged communications and the circumstances surrounding the intervie w. However, plaintiffs may inquire about officers having conversations regarding the incident with one another and the police union representative prior to the recorded interview. The Court GRANTS defendants' motion in limine no. 2 52 with reg ard to the liability phase, and DENIES defendants' motion in limine no. 2 52 with regard to the Monell phase without prejudice to its being renewed at trial. The Court DENIES defendants' motion in limine no. 3 53 without prejudice to it s being renewed at trial. The Court GRANTS defendants' motion in limine no. 4 54 . The Court GRANTS defendants' motion in limine no. 5 55 as to damages for plaintiffs' pain and suffering, but otherwise DENIES defendants' motion in limine 55 . The Court GRANTS defendants' motion to bifurcate the trial 56 , but DENIES in part defendants' proposed method of bifurcation. The Court will bifurcate the trial as follows: (a) Phase 1: Liability and Malice; (b) Phase 2: Monell issues, amount of compensatory damages, and amount of punitive damages. Court Reporter: Sandra Becerra. (gk)
|
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.
