Quinn v. City of Kansas City, Kan.
| Decision Date | 19 August 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. Civ.A. 98-2236-KHV.,Civ.A. 98-2236-KHV. |
| Citation | 64 F.Supp.2d 1084 |
| Parties | Jason QUINN, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF KANSAS CITY, KANSAS, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
Catherine A. Donnelly, Vleisides, Donnelly & O'Leary, John W. Kurtz, Hubbard Kurtz Taylor Maloney, L.L.P., Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiff.
Douglas M. Greenwald, Daniel B. Denk, McAnany, Van Cleave & phillips. P.A., Henry E. Couchman, Jr., Stephen G. Mirakian, Cheryl A. Pilate, Wyrsch Hobbs Mirakian & Lee, P.C., Mark J. Sachse, Kansas City, KS, for Defendants.
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion To Set Aside And Rescind Settlement Agreement, To Impose Sanctions, And To Temporarily Restrain Plaintiff And His Attorneys From Spending Any Settlement Proceeds (Doc. # 82) filed May 28, 1999 by the City of Kansas City, Kansas, the Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas, Marcella Tarbox and Jeffrey Ring; as well as Defendant Hooks' Motion To Join In The Motion Of Other Defendants To Set Aside And Rescind Settlement Agreement, To Impose Sanctions, And To Temporarily Restrain Plaintiff And His Attorneys From Spending Any Settlement Proceeds (Doc. # 83) filed May 28, 1999 and Motion To Join In Reply Brief (Doc. # 95) filed July 26, 1999 by defendant Dwayne C. Hooks.1 Defendants argue that the Court should rescind the settlement agreement, reopen the case and impose various sanctions on plaintiff based upon their discovery that plaintiff gave false testimony at his deposition. For the reasons stated below, defendants' motions must be sustained in part and denied in part.
Plaintiff brings suit against defendants under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, alleging that defendants violated his civil rights during an incident on May 29, 1997. Defendants arrested plaintiff and plaintiff sustained injuries, allegedly as the result of excessive force which defendants used. Plaintiff challenges both his arrest and the amount of force used by defendants. On December 17 and 18, 1998, defendants deposed plaintiff. During this deposition, plaintiff denied any knowledge that DaRon Lane sold illegal drugs, denied any involvement in Lane's drug-related activities, denied knowledge that Lane's drug buyers rented vehicles for Lane, including the vehicle in which plaintiff was riding on May 29, 1997, denied knowledge that Lane carried a gun, and denied ever seeing Lane, Lance Carrell or Brandon Pickens (other occupants in the vehicle) carrying firearms. Plaintiff also asserted that the beating which he allegedly received from Hooks caused permanent injuries including a deviated septum and a deformity in the orbital floor of his left eye socket.
Between February and April of 1999, the parties entered settlement agreements under which plaintiff dismissed all claims with prejudice in exchange for defendants' payment of $100,000. The parties entered two agreements — one which dismissed all claims against Tarbox and Ring, and one which dismissed all claims against Hooks, Hotujec, the Unified Government and the City of Kansas City. The parties executed the Tarbox/Ring agreement and the Court entered an order which dismissed plaintiff's claims against Tarbox and Ring with prejudice. See Order Of Dismissal As To Defendants Ring And Tarbox (Doc. # 75). Not all defendants executed the second agreement, but defendants nonetheless conveyed $100,000 to plaintiff.2
On May 5, 1999, after receiving $100,000 in settlement proceeds, plaintiff testified before this Court in a related criminal case against Hooks. In that case, which charged Hooks with criminally violating plaintiff's civil rights, plaintiff admitted that he testified falsely during portions of his deposition.
Defendants provide the following relevant differences between plaintiff's deposition testimony and his testimony in the criminal case:
A. DaRon Lane's Drug Sales
Q. Did you ever know DaRon Lane to be involved in drug deals?
A. I knew he sold marijuana.
* * * * * *
Q. Had you ever been present during any of Mr. Lane's drug transactions?
A. No.
* * * * * *
Q. Do you know what kind of drugs Mr. Lane sold?
A. Marijuana.
Q. Did he sell any other drugs, to your knowledge?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Brief In Support Of Defendants' Motion To Set Aside And Rescind Settlement Agreement, To Impose Sanctions, And To Temporarily Restrain Plaintiff And His Attorneys From Spending Any Settlement Proceeds (Doc. # 84), Ex. A. (Quinn deposition) at 159, 282-84.
Q. Okay, when you gave a deposition in the civil case related to this incident, were you asked whether your friend, Deron Lane, was a drug dealer?3
A. Yes.
Q. What did you say?
A. I told them that he sold marijuana.
Q. Were you asked whether he sold drugs other than marijuana?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you say?
A. No.
Q. Was that true?
A. No.
* * * * * *
Q. Page 283. "Question: Had you ever been present during any of Mr. Lane's drug transactions?" And your answer was "No." Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Now, you had been sworn to tell the truth, correct?
A. Correct.
* * * * * *
Q. And yet you chose to not tell the truth, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Now, that was an intentional decision on your part, wasn't it?
A. Yes.
* * * * * *
Q. Now, you had been with Mr. Lane on repeated occasions when he was engaging in narcotics trafficking activities; isn't that correct?
Brief In Support Of Defendants' Motion To Set Aside And Rescind Settlement Agreement, To Impose Sanction, And To Temporarily Restrain Plaintiff And His Attorneys From Spending Any Settlement Proceeds (Doc. # 84), Ex. E (Quinn testimony at criminal trial) at 37-38, 83-85.
Q. ... Did DaRon normally drive a particular vehicle?
A. Yes. He had a car. I believe it was in the shop at that time.
Q. Had you seen him in other cars before?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have any knowledge as to how he obtained those vehicles?
A. No.
* * * * * *
Q. Did you ever know Lance Carrell to carry a weapon?
A. No.
Q. How about DaRon Lane?
A. No.
* * * * * *
Q. Do you know whether Lance Carrell has ever been arrested for possession — excuse me, for carrying a pistol?
A. I don't know.
* * * * * *
Q. Did you know any of them to carry a weapon?
A. Yes.
Q. Which one of the individuals did you know to carry a weapon?
A. Previously, DaRon used to carry guns until he got caught. And he stopped. So — little Brandon, I didn't know him that well. I knew he had been in a little trouble, but we weren't running buddies. That was DaRon's cousin. And I didn't know Lance to carry a gun.
* * * * * *
Q. Did you ever see DaRon Lane's gun?
A. No.
Q. You knew he carried a gun?
A. He did some—at some point in time, yes.
Q. And you knew him to carry a gun; is that correct?
A. Then, yes.
Q. But you never saw it?
A. Correct.
* * * * * *
Q. You stated during questioning by Mr. Cassidy that you never saw DaRon Lane's gun; is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Yet you knew that he carried one at times; is that correct?
A. I knew he carried a gun. He — I was in college when he got caught with a gun. So I wouldn't have been with him to see him carry a gun.
Q. ... Now, Mr. Quinn, I want to talk to you about a couple of other aspects of your testimony today. You indicated on your direct examination that all of the individuals who were with you, Mr. Lane, Mr. Pickens, Mr. Carrell, were all known to carry firearms at various times, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you had seen each of those individuals on repeated occasions carrying firearms, correct?
A. Sometimes, yes.
Q. And Mr. Lane very often carried a weapon with him when he was engaged in his crack cocaine dealing activities, correct?
A. Sometimes.
Q. Okay. And he generally carried on those crack cocaine dealing activities from a rental car, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And those cars would be rented by persons who were drug customers of his, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And that would include Mr. Pickens and Mr. Carrell as people that you had seen on various occasions with firearms, correct?
A. I haven't seen Lance with one, but I know he got caught with one. And Brandon, I have seen him a few times with one.
* * * * * *
Q. ... At line 19 of that deposition, you were asked the question: "Did you ever see Deron Lane's gun," correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And your answer was no, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Indicating that you had never seen that gun, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. That answer was not true, was it?
A. I mean, what gun?
Q. The gun you described for the jury ... that you had, in fact, seen.
A. That is incorrect.
Q. This answer is incorrect?
A. Yes.
Q. And you knew it was incorrect at the time that you gave it, didn't you?
A. I mean, I should have said yes.
* * * * * *
Q. Okay, so you understood the nature of the question but did not tell the truth in the answer; is that correct?
A. Correct.
* * * * * *
Q. ... Now, you indicated shortly before we broke for lunch that you were aware that Deron Lane obtained rental vehicles from crack cocaine customers of his, correct?
A. Some of them, yes.
Q. On Page 352 of your deposition, sir, if you could turn to that, at line 15, you were asked the question: "Do you have any knowledge as to how he obtained those vehicles?" Is that what it says?
A. Yes.
* * * * * *
Q. And you answered no, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Now, in fact, Mr. Quinn, you know — you have testified here today that you knew that on occasion Deron Lane's crack cocaine customers would rent vehicles for him, correct?
A. Right.
* * * * * *
Q. And so your answer on Page 352 to the question at line 16 was simply not correct, was it?
A. No.
Q. And, again, you understood the question that was being asked...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R & R. Indus. Park v. Utah Prop. & Cas. Ins.
...discretion to either enforce or reject a settlement agreement entered into by the parties while the litigation is pending." 64 F.Supp.2d 1084, 1091 (D.Kan.1999). While this is true, the invalidation of the contract must still be based upon one of the required factual bases for setting aside......
-
Billy Barnes Enterprises, Inc. v. Williams
...— the only information as to these matters that would be provided to a fact-finder in the event of a trial. Cf. Quinn v. City of Kansas City, 64 F.Supp.2d 1084, 1092 (D.Kan.1999) ("Regardless whether defendants believed plaintiff's testimony, the possibility that a jury would believe plaint......
-
Banks v. St. Francis Health Ctr., Inc.
...Co., 70 F.3d 1172, 1174 (10th Cir. 1995). 8. Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds, 965 F.2d 916, 920 (10th Cir. 1992). 9. Quinn v. City of Kansas City, Kan., 64 F. Supp. 2d 1084, 1094 (D. Kan. 1999). The Tenth Circuit has outlined a number of purposes for imposition of a particular sanction to include (1)......
-
Houston v. Cnty. of Boone
...that the defendants would not have settled for $2 million even given the other factors they considered. See Quinn v. City of Kansas City, 64 F. Supp. 2d 1084, 1091-93 (D. Kan. 1999) ("If plaintiff had not testified falsely, defendants would have had less incentive to settle the case and les......