Aaron Raiser v. City of Temecula

C.D. California

Aaron Raiser v. City of Temecula

DecidedMarch 23, 2020

Docket5:17-cv-00217

StatusUnknown

This text of Aaron Raiser v. City of Temecula (Aaron Raiser v. City of Temecula) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aaron Raiser v. City of Temecula, (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AARON RAISER, ) CASE NO: 5:17-cv-00217 RGK(RAOx) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) (PROPOSED) JUDGMENT ) 13 vs. ) ) 14 CITY OF TEMECULA et al, ) ) 15 Defendants. ) ______________________________ ) 16 17 This case was tried to a jury starting on December 10, 2019. The court 18 bifurcated trial into two phases. Phase 1 addressed liability. Phase 2 addressed 19 damages and Monell issues. 20 The jury returned the following verdict for phase 1: 21 For the following encounters, did plaintiff Aaron Raiser prove by a 22 preponderance of the evidence that his constitutional rights were violated by the 23 named deputies? 24 By a deputy sheriff on 2/10/15 No 25 By a deputy sheriff on 2/18/15 No 26 By Deputy Melback on 6/22/15 No 27 By Deputies Nelson and Waroff on 7/7/15 No By Deputy Butts on 10/21/15 Yes 28 : 2 3 At the conclusion of Plaintiffs presentation of evidence in phase 2, the Court 4 granted Defendants’ motion for judgment pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. Rule 50(a) on both 5 damages and Monell issues. 6 The Court found that Plaintiff had not met his burden of proving his equitable 7 claims, claims 16, 20, 24 and 26. (Docket number 368) The Court denied 8 | Defendants’ motion for judgment pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. Rule 50(b) (docket number ? 366) and denied Plaintiff’s motion for new trial/motion to vacate. (Docket number 369) Ninth Circuit cases hold that if a plaintiff obtains a verdict finding liability but 2 I does not prove any actual damages, the plaintiff is entitled to nominal damages of sy. Floyd v. Laws, 929 F.2d 1390, 1402-1403 (9 Cir. 1991); Schneider v. County 14 of San Diego, 285 F.3d 784, 795 (9th Cir. 2002). 15 The Court therefore enters judgment as follows: 16 1. Judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff Aaron Raiser against defendant M7 Deputy Richard Butts in the sum of $1. 18 2. Judgment is entered in favor of defendants County of Riverside, City of 19 Temecula, Deputy Brian Nelson, Deputy Jared Melback, and Deputy Steven Waroff 20 | and against plaintiff Aaron Raiser. 21 . Dated: March 23, 2020 Race a 3 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AARON RAISER, ) CASE NO: 5:17-cv-00217 RGK(RAOx) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) (PROPOSED) JUDGMENT ) 13 vs. ) ) 14 CITY OF TEMECULA et al, ) ) 15 Defendants. ) ______________________________ ) 16 17 This case was tried to a jury starting on December 10, 2019. The court 18 bifurcated trial into two phases. Phase 1 addressed liability. Phase 2 addressed 19 damages and Monell issues. 20 The jury returned the following verdict for phase 1: 21 For the following encounters, did plaintiff Aaron Raiser prove by a 22 preponderance of the evidence that his constitutional rights were violated by the 23 named deputies? 24 By a deputy sheriff on 2/10/15 No 25 By a deputy sheriff on 2/18/15 No 26 By Deputy Melback on 6/22/15 No 27 By Deputies Nelson and Waroff on 7/7/15 No By Deputy Butts on 10/21/15 Yes 28 : 2 3 At the conclusion of Plaintiffs presentation of evidence in phase 2, the Court 4 granted Defendants’ motion for judgment pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. Rule 50(a) on both 5 damages and Monell issues. 6 The Court found that Plaintiff had not met his burden of proving his equitable 7 claims, claims 16, 20, 24 and 26. (Docket number 368) The Court denied 8 | Defendants’ motion for judgment pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. Rule 50(b) (docket number ? 366) and denied Plaintiff’s motion for new trial/motion to vacate. (Docket number 369) Ninth Circuit cases hold that if a plaintiff obtains a verdict finding liability but 2 I does not prove any actual damages, the plaintiff is entitled to nominal damages of sy. Floyd v. Laws, 929 F.2d 1390, 1402-1403 (9 Cir. 1991); Schneider v. County 14 of San Diego, 285 F.3d 784, 795 (9th Cir. 2002). 15 The Court therefore enters judgment as follows: 16 1. Judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff Aaron Raiser against defendant M7 Deputy Richard Butts in the sum of $1. 18 2. Judgment is entered in favor of defendants County of Riverside, City of 19 Temecula, Deputy Brian Nelson, Deputy Jared Melback, and Deputy Steven Waroff 20 | and against plaintiff Aaron Raiser. 21 . Dated: March 23, 2020 Race a 3 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Aaron Raiser v. City of Temecula, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aaron-raiser-v-city-of-temecula-cacd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack