Flores-Haro et al v. Slade et al
| T. F., Ti. F., Adalberto Flores-Haro, Alma Granados-Millan, D. I., J. I. and Y. I. |
| City of Hillsboro, John Egg, Brian McLeod, Steven Slade and Washington County |
| 3:2012cv01616 |
| September 7, 2012 |
| US District Court for the District of Oregon |
| Portland (3) Office |
| Ancer L. Haggerty |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights |
| Both |
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
449
OPINION AND ORDER: This matter comes before me on several post-trial motions: Defendants' Motions to Alter or Amend Judgment [406,412], the City of Hillsboro's Motion to Apply OTCA Damages Cap 366 , and Washington County's Motion fo r Election of Remedies, Remittitur, and to Reduce the Award Consistant with OTCA Limits 368 . For the reasons below, and in conjunction with my October 11, 2018, Opinion and Order 447 , these motions are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part... Signed on 1/1/2019 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (kms)
|
|
Filing
447
OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons stated above, I find that Plaintiffs must elect which remedy to pursue: either the award for battery or the award for negligence. In either case, because the economic damages awards under both claims are in excess of the medical expenses presented to the jury, Plaintiffs must also decide whether to accept remittitur of $498,006.79. If Plaintiffs decline to accept the remittitur, I will order a new trial on the issue of damages. The deadline for Plaint iffs to elect a remedy and accept remittitur is October 25, 2018. To the extent that they request a reduction of economic damages and an election of remedies, the following motions are resolved in part: Hillsboros Objections to Plaintiffs Proposed Form of Judgment 367 , Defendant Washington Countys Motion for Election of Remedies, Remittitur, and to Reduce Award Consistent with OTCA Limits 368 , and Defendants Motions to Alter or Amend Judgment [406, 412]. Decision on any remaining requests in these motions, including further reduction of the jurys award in accordance with the Oregon Tort Claims Act, is reserved pending Plaintiffs response to this opinion and order. Signed on 10/11/2018 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (kms)
|
|
Filing
224
OPINION AND ORDER. With none of the undergirding rationales for Heck in place, it would be thoughtless to apply Heck without questioning its purpose or considering the particular facts of the case. In this case, as a consequence of Plaintiff Flores- Haros no contest plea, the statements of Judge Jones regarding future civil cases, and Plaintiffs battery claim, I find in these limited circumstances Heck does not bar Plaintiffs Section 1983 action. Itherefore DENY Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs Section 1983 claim [108, 113]. Signed on 2/3/15 by Chief Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)
|
|
Filing
222
OPINION AND ORDER. I find that the appeals, taken as a whole, are notfrivolous and I GRANT the motion to stay. Signed on 1/25/16 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)
|
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 Oregon 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.
