Court Proceeding

This case study is about a civil case of David Venegas, et al. v. County of Los Angeles, et al case no. B186764 and dated 8/4/2007. It took place at the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District on appeal from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. The proceeding judge was Johnson. Robert Mann and Donald W. Cook were the attorneys for the Plaintiffs and Appellants. The lawyers for the Defendants and Respondents County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, Sheriff Lee Baca, Deputy Sheriffs Michael Gray, Robert Harris and Thomas Jimenez were Franscell, Strickland, Roberts & Lawrence, David D.

Lawrence, Jin S. Choi and Scott E. Caron for. Revere & Wallace, Frank Revere, Gabriel Dermer and Annie Kyureghian for Defendants and Respondents City of Vernon, Vernon Police Department and Detective Steve Wiles. The case’s adjudications was in favor of the City of Vernon and Officer Wiles on plaintiffs’ cause of action under Civil Code section 52. 1 and in favor of all defendants on the cause of action for battery. But was later reversed as to all defendants on plaintiffs’ negligence cause of action.

David and his family filed complaints against the County of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, Sheriff Lee Baca, former Sheriff Sherman Block and three sheriff’s deputies, Harris, Gray and Jimenez. The suit also named the City of Vernon, the Vernon Police Department and Officer Wiles, and the City of El Segundo, whose officer, Kerkhof, was part of the TRAP team but not named as a defendant.

Two complaint of the plaintiffs’ alleged causes of action for violations of their federal and state civil rights under 42 United States Code section 1983 and Civil Code section 52. 1 as well as various state law torts arising out of the detention and arrest of David and Beatriz by members of TRAP and the subsequent search of plaintiffs’ home by sheriff’s deputies. The trial court ruled in favor of defendants on all but two claims prior to trial, sustaining demurrers as to some causes of action and granting summary adjudication on others.

When the case went to trial, plaintiffs presented their case-in-chief claiming their detentions, the search and seizure of their car and the subsequent search of their home violated their Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. At the close of plaintiffs’ evidence the trial court granted defendants’ motion for nonsuit, finding the officers had “acted reasonably by any objective standard” and therefore were entitled as a matter of law to immunity from any civil liability. The court explained that having the situation that there is an ongoing investigation of Mr.

Venegas’ brother, and him resembling to his brother and possesing no identification cards or a driver’s license, at the same time acting belligerent and non cooperative with the officers was more than enough probable cause. The court stated that the officers acted reasonably under those circumstances so the non suit was granted that time. The court later reversed the judgment of non suit in Venegas I, three concluding the evidence in plaintiffs’ case-in-chief raised factual issues regarding defendants’ entitlement to qualified immunity that were properly determined by the jury, not the trial court.

The trial court was also held erred in sustaining without leave to amend the demurrers of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and Sheriff Baca to plaintiffs’ federal civil rights claims under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, holding that, when engaged in a criminal investigation, the sheriff is acting as an agent of the county, not the state, and therefore is a “person” under section 1983. In addition, the court’s ordered was reversed sustaining without leave to amend the demurrer to plaintiffs’ claim under section 52.

1 finding plaintiffs had adequately stated a cause of action under this provision. In conclusion, the trial court was given directions to vacate its order granting summary judgment as to the remaining causes of action in this case and to issue a new order (1) granting the motion of the City of Vernon, the Vernon Police Department and Detective Wiles for summary adjudication as to plaintiffs’ cause of action under Civil Code section 52.

1 for violation of their constitutional rights and as to their cause of action for battery and denying the motion as to plaintiffs’ cause of action for negligence; (2) granting the motion of the County of Los Angeles and Deputy Harris for summary adjudication as to plaintiffs’ cause of action for battery and denying the motion as to plaintiffs’ cause of action under Civil Code section 52. 1 for violation of their constitutional rights and as to their cause of action for negligence. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. I found out that some laws do not apply because of other laws.

In this case, the doctrine of qualified immunity which applies to federal civil rights actions under 42 U. S. C section 1983 does not apply to California civil rights actions under Civil Code section 52. 1. the doctrine of qualified immunity did not apply because of the plaintiff’s cause of action under civil code section 52. 1. At the end, the court favored with plaintiff but I think it is not fair that both parties bear their own cost of appeal. I think the defendants should have paid for the plaintiff’s expenses on the trials. Works Cited More Law. Retrieved on February 15, 2008. Retrieved from http://www. morelaw. com/