Kaur v. City of Lodi

• Decision Date: 29 June 2017
• Docket Number: No. 2:14–cv–00828–TLN–AC,2:14–cv–00828–TLN–AC
• Citation: 263 F.Supp.3d 947
• Parties: Sukhwinder KAUR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF LODI, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California

263 F.Supp.3d 947

Sukhwinder KAUR, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.CITY OF LODI, et al., Defendants.

No. 2:14–cv–00828–TLN–AC

United States District Court, E.D. California.

Signed June 29, 2017

Filed June 30, 2017

Dale K. Galipo, Law Offices of Dale K. Galipo, Woodland Hills, CA, Mark E. Merin, Paul Hajime Masuhara, III, Law Office of Mark E. Merin, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiffs.

Amie Collins McTavish, Bruce Alan Kilday, Lance M. Martin, Angelo, Kilday & Kilduff, LLP, Sacramento, CA, Janice Diane Magdich, City of Lodi Attorney's Office, Lodi, CA, Mark Emmett Berry, Derick E. Konz, Mayall Hurley, PC, Stockton, CA, Dale K. Galipo, Law Offices of Dale K. Galipo, Woodland Hills, CA, for Defendants.

ORDER

Troy L. Nunley, United States District Judge

This matter is before the Court pursuant to Defendants City of Lodi ("Lodi"), City of Lodi Police Department ("LPD") and Mark Helms's ("Chief Helms") Motion for Summary Adjudication (ECF No. 163) and Defendants Miles Scott Bratton ("Corporal Bratton") and Adam Lockie's ("Officer Lockie") Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication (ECF No. 164).¹

The Court will refer to Lodi, LPD, and Chief Helms as the "City Defendants." The Court will refer to Corporal Bratton and Officer Lockie as the "Officer Defendants." For efficiency's sake the Court will analyze the Officer Defendants' motion first. The Court has carefully considered the arguments raised by the parties. For the reasons set forth below, the Officer Defendants' motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Likewise, the City Defendants' motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

I. PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION OF THE OFFICER DEFENDANTS' MOTION

This case arises out of a fatal police shooting. None of the non-officer witnesses (the "Non–Party Witnesses") observed the entirety of the dynamic encounter between Parminder Singh Shergill ("Parminder") and the Officer Defendants. The Non–Party Witnesses who witnessed the shooting itself could not see whether there was a knife in Parminder's hands at the time he was shot. However, their testimony does call into question the key factual assertion which underlies the Officer Defendants' motion: "[t]he [Officer Defendants] did not use deadly force until [Parminder] abruptly turned back and ‘charged toward’ them with the knife." (ECF No. 164–1 at 38.) This factual dispute turns on a jury's credibility determinations and cannot be resolved by the Court on summary judgment.

Unfortunately, the Officer Defendants' motion takes for granted that this crucial factual assertion is undisputed to such a degree that it is virtually impossible to intelligently engage their arguments without reciting their version of events. Consequently, the Court will set out a brief summary of the Officer Defendants' version of events in the "Factual Background" section of this Order followed by the material facts that Plaintiffs assert are in dispute. The Court will also include a brief summary of the deposition testimony of four Non–Party Witnesses who saw (or heard) the shooting because Plaintiffs inaccurately cite two of them for the proposition that it can be definitively stated Parminder "never ‘armed himself’ with a knife." (ECF No. 177–1 at 15 (emphasis added).)

The Court mentions an additional item of note. Plaintiffs submitted more than 60 evidentiary objections to the Officer Defendants' proposed statement of undisputed material facts. (See ECF No. 177–1.) However, Plaintiffs acknowledge the Court need not separately address these evidentiary objections in order to resolve this motion. They have correctly cited Burch v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. , 433 F.Supp.2d 1110, 1123 (E.D. Cal. 2006), for the proposition that "objections to evidence on the ground that it is irrelevant, speculative, and/or argumentative, or that it constitutes an improper legal conclusion are all duplicative of the summary judgment standard itself." (ECF No. 177 at 16 n.5; ECF No. 177–1 at 1–2.) The Court agrees and will not separately address these objections. Likewise, the Court found it unnecessary to resolve the Officer Defendants' objections to Plaintiffs' evidence offered in support of their opposition in order to resolve the Officer Defendants' motion. (ECF No. 187–3.)

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF OFFICER DEFENDANTS' MOTION

A. The Officer Defendants' Version of Events

The Officer Defendants responded to a 9–1–1 call placed from 23 Elderica Way, Lodi, CA (the "Family Home") on the morning of January 25, 2014. (ECF No. 164–2 at ¶¶ 1, 4.) On that call Kuldeep Shergill ("Kuldeep"), Parminder's sister-in-law, reported that Parminder was a "paranoid schizophrenic" who was "off his medication," "going crazy," and "attacking [her] mother-in-law" inside the Family Home. (ECF No. 164–2 at ¶ 4.) The substance of this call was relayed to the Officer Defendants prior to their arrival at the Family Home. (ECF No. 164–2 at ¶¶ 5–8.) Officer Lockie knew prior to his arrival that he was responding to a family disturbance involving a mentally ill individual attacking a family member. (ECF No. 164–2 at ¶ 9.) Corporal Bratton knew there was an assault at the residence involving a schizophrenic subject. (ECF No. 164–2 at ¶ 10.) In reality, Parminder had attacked no one, but this information was not relayed to the Officer Defendants. (ECF No. 164–2 at ¶¶ 18–20.) Additionally, the Officer Defendants assert that Parminder had been drinking, but they do not assert that they were aware of this during their encounter with him. (See ECF No. 164–2 at ¶ 1.)

The Officer Defendants arrived approximately 11 minutes after the 9–1–1 call was placed. (Compare ECF No. 164–2 at ¶ 11 with ECF No. 164–2 at ¶ 4.) They were told upon arrival that Parminder had already left the Family Home on foot. (ECF No. 164–2 at ¶ 14.) They were also informed that Parminder suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder

and was off of his medication. (ECF No. 164–2 at ¶ 16.) Sarabjit Shergill ("Sarabjit"), Parminder's brother, reported to the Officer Defendants that Parminder was "having an episode" and could likely be found at a nearby park. (ECF No. 164–2 at ¶ 21.) Corporal Bratton was given a description of Parminder, including the clothes he was wearing. (Bratton Dep., ECF No. 164–4 at 112:6–9.)² Corporal Bratton was also told there were guns in the house, but that they were locked up. (ECF No. 164–2 at ¶ 22.) The Officer Defendants were not informed that Parminder owned a knife. (ECF No. 164–2 at ¶ 23.) Corporal Bratton told Kuldeep, Sarabjit, and Sukhwinder Kaur ("Sukhwinder"), Parminder's mother, that the Officer Defendants would drive around the block to look for Parminder. (ECF No. 164–2 at ¶ 26.) Parminder's family was told to call LPD if Parminder returned home. (ECF No. 164–2 at ¶ 28.) The Officer Defendants left the Family Home in separate vehicles for nearby Peterson Park. (ECF No. 164–2 at ¶ 32.)

Corporal Bratton located Parminder in Peterson Park near the basketball courts and parked his vehicle on Evergreen Drive, which fronts the east side of the park. (See ECF No. 164–2 at ¶ 36.) Parminder was observed walking through the middle of a coordinated exercise group in Peterson Park. (ECF No. 164–2 at ¶ 41.) Parminder, who was walking east toward Corporal Bratton and eventually past him, did not respond when Corporal Bratton spoke to him. (ECF No. 164–2 at ¶¶ 40, 42–43.) Parminder walked past Officer Lockie, who was in his patrol vehicle at the intersection of Elderica Way and Evergreen Drive at the border of Peterson Park, while Corporal Bratton trailed behind Parminder, attempting to speak with Parminder and asking Parminder to stop. (ECF No. 164–2 at ¶¶ 45–46, 48.) As Parminder continued walking, he told Corporal Bratton, "Fuck you. I am not talking to you." (ECF No. 164–2 at ¶ 49.) Parminder was walking in the general direction of the Family Home. (ECF No. 164–2 at ¶¶ 49–50.) As he did this, Parminder removed a black knife from his clothing, opened it and held it at his side in his right hand. (ECF No. 164–2 at ¶¶ 49–50.) Corporal Bratton relayed this over the radio along with stating that Parminder was refusing commands. (ECF No. 164–2 at ¶¶ 50–54.) Officer Lockie exited his car upon hearing Corporal Bratton report that Parminder had a knife. (Lockie Dep., ECF No. 164–4 at 78:6–10.) Officer Lockie also observed the knife in Parminder's right hand. (ECF No. 164–2 at ¶ 55.)

At some point after Parminder armed himself with a knife, the Officer Defendants drew their guns. (ECF No. 164–2 at ¶¶ 55, 57, 59.) Parminder continued to walk in the general direction of his home while ignoring the commands of the Officer Defendants, including commands to drop his knife. (ECF No. 164–2 at ¶¶ 57–58, 60–61.) Both of the Officer Defendants grew concerned that Parminder was a threat to his family. (ECF No. 164–2 at ¶¶ 56, 63.) Ultimately, Corporal Bratton radioed that "[w]e are going back on to Elderica, I need you to call the [9–1–1 caller] back and advise them to barricade the front door" noting that the "subject is armed with a knife" and "very agitated." (ECF No. 164–2 at ¶ 64.) The Officer Defendants indicate that they followed Parminder trailing approximately ten to twenty feet behind him and approximately ten to twelve feet from each other. (ECF No. 164–2 at ¶ 66.) Parminder, while continuing to walk away and ignore commands, screamed "you want to talk to me motherfucker." (ECF No. 164–2 at ¶ 67.) Corporal Bratton ordered Parminder to "stop," "drop the weapon," "put down the weapon," and "stop or I will shoot." (ECF No. 164–2 at ¶ 68.)

Parminder then quickly turned around and faced the Officer Defendants, while screaming with his knife in his right hand near his own head and the blade pointed at Corporal Bratton. (ECF No. 164–2 at ¶¶ 70–71.) Corporal Bratton again ordered Parminder to "stop," "drop the weapon," and "stop or I will shoot." (ECF No. 164–2 at ¶ 72.) Corporal Bratton testified Parminder then charged him giving out a "war cry" and screaming: "Fuck you. ...