Jaramillo v. City of San Mateo

Decision Date19 December 2014
Docket NumberCase No. 13–cv–00441 NC
Citation76 F.Supp.3d 905
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of California
PartiesJose Antonio Aguilar Jaramillo, Plaintiff, v. City of San Mateo, Amanda Fiore, Antonio Montojo, Michael Leishman, Defendants.

Mark Walter Hostetter, Law Office of Mark W. Hostetter, Nathan Menta Zaslow, Law Office of Nathan Zaslow, San Jose, CA, for Plaintiff.

Jeffrey Michael Vucinich, Clapp Moroney Bellagamba Vucinich Beeman & Scheley a Professional Corporation, San Bruno, CA, Ethanluke M. Lowry, Bertrand, Fox and Elliot, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants.

ORDER DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 59

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS, United States Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff Jose Antonio Aguilar Jaramillo alleges that three San Mateo police officers assaulted him while he was on his way to a taqueria. He contends the officers struck him in the head, threw him down onto the sidewalk, and broke one of his ribs with a “knee-strike.” The officers contend that they exercised reasonable force. They approached Jaramillo after they observed him in a “high-crime area” in a parked car with an expired registration. According to the officers, Jaramillo had his hand in his pocket and refused to comply with their order to remove his hand. Instead, he walked away from them. From their perspective, Jaramillo could have been hiding a weapon in his pocket. The officers argue that the force they used on Jaramillo was therefore reasonable to ensure safety. Jaramillo was arrested for obstructing an investigation, and later released.

Jaramillo sued the officers and the City of San Mateo, alleging that the officers exercised excessive force in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and various state law claims. Those officers now move for summary judgment. The City also seeks summary judgment as to Jaramillo's Monell and state law claims.

In evaluating a summary judgment motion, [t]he evidence of the nonmovant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Tolan v. Cotton, ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 1861, 1863, 188 L.Ed.2d 895 (2014) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) ). For that reason, and because genuine issues of material fact still exist, the Court DENIES in part and GRANTS in part defendants' motion for summary judgment.

I. BACKGROUND
A. Facts

The following relevant facts come primarily from Jaramillo's declaration, Jaramillo's deposition testimony, the declaration of eyewitness Jason Rojas, and the deposition testimony of the three officers. See Dkt. Nos. 62–1 (Von Glahn Deposition); 62–2 (Montojo Deposition); 62–3 (Leishman Deposition); 62–4 (Jaramillo Deposition); 65 (Jaramillo Declaration); 66 (Rojas Declaration).

i. Events Leading up to Encounter Between Jaramillo and the Officers

a. Jaramillo's Account

According to Jaramillo, on March 13, 2012, shortly after 8:00 p.m., he drove to restaurant Las Palomas Taqueria, located on East 3rd Avenue in the City of San Mateo. Dkt. No. 23 at ¶ 6. He parked his car near the front of the restaurant, and, before exiting, turned around to reach into the backseat to search through his backpack. Dkt. No. 65 at ¶ 3. Jaramillo stated he was looking for an envelope, where he wanted to place money that he intended to hand to someone inside the restaurant. Id. At the time, Jaramillo carried approximately $2,800 in cash in his wallet. Dkt. No. 62–4 at 3–4.

b. Defendant City of San Mateo Officers' Account

On March 13, 2012, Officers Amanda Von Glahn (formerly Amanda Fiore), Antonio Montojo, and Michael Leishman of the San Mateo Police Department were patrolling the area surrounding the taqueria together in an unmarked police SUV. Dkt. Nos. 62–1 at 5; 622 at 4, 7. All of the officers were also members of the Special Investigations Bureau, a narcotics unit that investigated drug-related crimes. Dkt. No. 62–1 at 3–4. According to defendants, the area surrounding the restaurant—which the officers characterized as a “high-crime area”—included a smoke shop and adult bookstore; in the past, the officers claimed to have made several narcotics-related arrests in front of these businesses. Dkt. Nos. 62–1 at 6–7, 25; 62–2 at 8; 63–3 at 19.

At approximately 8:00 p.m., the officers drove down East 3rd Avenue, and noticed Jaramillo in the driver seat of his parked vehicle looking down. Dkt. No. 62–2 at 3, 5–6. Montojo testified that Jaramillo's car was parked directly in front of the adult bookstore. Id. at 5. Von Glahn testified that they conducted a license plate check of Jaramillo's car by providing the plate number to police dispatch. Dkt. No. 62–1 at 9–14. The officers learned that the vehicle registration had expired. Id. Jaramillo later stated that the vehicle registration had indeed expired five days earlier on March 8. Dkt. No. 65 at 2. After learning this information, Von Glahn testified that she and Leishman exited the patrol vehicle to make contact with Jaramillo concerning the expired registration. Dkt. No. 62–1 at 12–13. Montojo stayed behind initially to park the police truck. Dkt. No. 62–2 at 7.

ii. Encounter Between Jaramillo and Officers
a. Jaramillo's Account

According to Jaramillo, he got out of his car after he could not find the envelope in his backpack. Dkt. No. 65 at ¶ 3. He started to walk toward the rear of the car with the intention of stepping onto the sidewalk to enter the taqueria. Id. at ¶ 4. Jaramillo stated that before even getting to the sidewalk, a “woman appeared on the street dressed in street clothes, a sweatshirt.” Id. He later found out this woman was Von Glahn. Id. According to Jaramillo, Von Glahn said “police officer” and “flashed something hanging from her neck very quickly and then put it back insider her sweatshirt.” Id. Jaramillo stated that it looked like “some type of badge....” Id. Von Glahn asked him if the car belonged to him and Jaramillo replied yes. Id. Von Glahn asked him for identification. Id. Jaramillo stated that he then tried to reach into his pocket for his wallet, but was told by Von Glahn to keep his hand out of his pocket. Id. Jaramillo tried again to reach into his pocket for his identification, but Von Glahn once more told him not to do so. Id. Von Glahn then informed him that his registration was not valid. Id. Jaramillo replied that he thought it was valid through March. Id.

According to Jaramillo, he doubted whether Von Glahn was a real police officer. Id. at ¶ 5. Jaramillo explained he did not believe she or the other officers were real police officers until after he was eventually handcuffed; he had heard on a Spanish news channel that criminals were pretending to be police officers in order to steal from people. Dkt. No. 62–4 at 16, 18. Fearful for his safety, Jaramillo testified that he turned away from Von Glahn and started to walk towards the restaurant. Dkt. No. 62–4 at 10. As he approached the restaurant, Jaramillo stated that Von Glahn grabbed his jacket while Leishman (“wearing a loose sweater”) grabbed him from his right side, and Montojo (dressed in “street clothes”) came from his left side. Dkt. No. 65 at ¶ 6. After Montojo came from the left, Jaramillo stated he “felt a blow to my left ear.” Id. He explained that he was then taken down onto the ground face down against the sidewalk.Id. Subsequently, Jaramillo said he felt blows to his ribs from Montojo, and that Leishman was on top of his neck holding him down while Von Glahn was on top of him putting his arms behind his back. Id. at ¶ 7. Jaramillo stated that he shouted for help; he explained that he still did not believe at that point that Von Glahn, Montojo, and Leishman were real police officers. Id. The officers then placed Jaramillo in handcuffs and sat him against the wall of the taqueria. Id. at ¶ 9.

Throughout the entire encounter with the officers, Jaramillo maintains that he never had either of his hands in his pockets. Id. at ¶ 8.

b. Rojas' Account

Jason Rojas, a restaurant patron, was at the restaurant the night Jaramillo was arrested. Dkt. No. 66. According to Rojas, he was eating with his girlfriend at a table adjacent to Jaramillo's parking spot when he noticed a “large man” approaching Jaramillo from behind. Id. at 5. He claimed to have seen Jaramillo walk towards the entrance to the restaurant and observed that Jaramillo did not have his hands in his pockets. Id. at 6.

c. The Officers' Account

Upon exiting the police vehicle, Von Glahn asserts that she removed her police badge from her shirt and placed it on her chest. Dkt. No. 62–1 at 17. Von Glahn then proceeded to approach Jaramillo from the driver-side of Jaramillo's car while Leishman walked along the sidewalk on the car's passenger side. Id. at 17–20; Dkt. No. 62–3 at 5. According to Von Glahn and Leishman, Jaramillo stood outside of his vehicle on the street, with the driver-side, rear door open, rummaging through his backpack on the back seat. Dkt. Nos. 62–1 at 18; 62–3 at 6. Von Glahn testified that she walked up to Jaramillo, and identified herself as a police officer. Dkt. No. 62–1 at 18–19. According to Von Glahn, she showed Jaramillo her badge, asked about his expired registration, and requested to see his identification. Id. Von Glahn testified that Jaramillo initially answered her questions about the car, but failed to respond when asked about his identification. Id.

That's when Von Glahn claimed Jaramillo placed his left hand inside his left jacket pocket. Id. at 20. According to Von Glahn, though she asked Jaramillo to remove his hand from his pocket, he did not do so. Id. Von Glahn testified to noticing something “bulky” in Jaramillo's pocket. Id. In an attempt to identify what he was reaching for with his left hand, Von Glahn asked Jaramillo where he kept his wallet. Id. at 21. Again, according to Von Glahn, Jaramillo said nothing. Id. Unsure about what Jaramillo had in his left pocket, Von Glahn testified that she...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • McDonald v. Cnty. of Sonoma
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • 11 December 2020
    ...e.g., Blankenhorn, 485 F.3d at 487 n.17 ; Warren v. Marcus, 78 F. Supp. 3d 1228, 1250 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ; Jaramillo v. City of San Mateo, 76 F. Supp. 3d 905, 926 (N.D. Cal. 2014). DS Perkins allegedly knocked McDonald unconscious and broke several of his teeth, causing McDonald to suffer emo......
  • Grissom v. Modesto Police Dep't
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • 11 February 2022
    ... ... August 13, 2021, against Defendants Modesto Police ... Department, City of Modesto, Officer Tyrell Minnis-Swass, and ... two Doe Officers. (ECF No. 1.) On August 23, ... probable cause to arrest plaintiff); see also Jaramillo ... v. City of San Mateo , 76 F.Supp.3d 905, 927 (N.D. Cal ... 2014) (“Courts ... ...
  • McFarland v. City of Clovis
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • 10 April 2017
    ...F.3d at 1170; Save CCSF Coalition v. Lim, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69195, *56-*57 (N.D. Cal. May 27, 2015); Jaramillo v. City of San Mateo, 76 F.Supp.3d 905, 926-27 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Discussion The Court agrees with Defendants that the negligence cause of action appears to include two claims, ......
  • Lavenant v. City of Palm Springs
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • 8 August 2018
    ...procedure, or supervision of officers. Munoz v. City of Union City, 120 Cal. App. 4th 1077, 1113 (2004); Jaramillo v. City of San Mateo, 76 F. Supp. 3d 905, 927 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (citing to Munoz, 120 Cal. App. 4th at 1110-15). Nevertheless, a city may be liable in a wrongful death action ag......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT