Nunez v. Santos
| Decision Date | 13 December 2019 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 17-CV-03860-LHK |
| Citation | 427 F.Supp.3d 1165 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
| Parties | Tony NUNEZ and the Estate of Anthony Nunez Through Its Personal Representative Sandy Sanchez, Plaintiffs, v. Michael SANTOS and Anthony Vizzusi, et al., Defendants. |
John L. Burris, Adante Pointer, Lateef Hasani Gray, Patrick Matthew Buelna, The Law Offices of John L. Burris, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiffs.
Ardell Johnson, Yue-Han Chow, San Jose City Attorney's Office, San Jose, CA, for Defendants.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' POST-TRIAL MOTIONS
Re: Dkt. No. 193
A jury trial commenced in this case on June 17, 2019. On June 25, 2019, at the close of the defense case and prior to closing arguments, Defendants Michael Santos and Anthony Vizzusi (collectively, "Defendants") moved for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a). The Court denied the motion and allowed the entire case to go to the jury. On July 2, 2019, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs as to Plaintiffs' excessive force and negligence claims, and in favor of Defendants as to Plaintiffs' right to familial relationship claim.
Following the verdict, Defendants renewed their motion for judgment as a matter of law in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) and included an alternative motion for a new trial or remittitur under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. These motions are presently before the Court. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the relevant law, and the record in this case, the Court DENIES the motion for judgment as a matter of law and the motion for a new trial or remittitur.
This case arises out of an incident on July 4, 2016 in which Anthony Nunez ("Nunez") was fatally shot by two officers of the San Jose Police Department ("SJPD"). The following basic facts were established at trial, and are undisputed. On the afternoon of July 4, 2016, officers of the SJPD responded to a priority service call at 994 Feller Avenue, San Jose, California ("994 Feller Avenue"), for a man with a gun who was possibly suicidal. ECF No. 185 at 48-49. Among the responding officers were Officers Michael Santos ("Officer Santos") and Anthony Vizzusi ("Officer Vizzusi"). Id. at 49. Before the police arrived, Nunez shot himself in the head with a gun but was not killed. Id. Then, at some point after the police arrived but before they were able to enter the house at 994 Feller Avenue, Nunez stepped out of the house and onto the porch with a gun. ECF No. 197 at 8; ECF No. 193 at 2. Nunez then retreated into the house. ECF No. 197 at 8; ECF No. 193 at 2. Later, Nunez returned to the porch with the gun on or near his person. ECF No. 197 at 8; ECF No. 193 at 2. Defendants Santos and Vizzusi then shot Nunez and killed him. ECF No. 185 at 49.
On July 7, 2017, Tony Nunez—the decedent's father—and the Estate of Anthony Nunez by and through its personal representative Sandy Sanchez (collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed suit against the City of San Jose, Officer Santos, Officer Vizzusi, and various Doe SJPD officers. ECF No 1. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on January 12, 2018. ECF No. 14. The First Amended Complaint ("FAC") contains five claims: (1) a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution for excessive force; (2) a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution for denial of medical care; (3) a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution for violation of his right to familial relationship; (4) a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for municipal liability for unconstitutional custom or policy; and (5) a wrongful death claim under California state law, see Cal. Code Civ. P. § 377.60.
Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment as to all claims in the FAC on March 7, 2019. ECF No. 66. The Court granted the motion as to claims (2) and (4) for denial of medical care and municipal liability, respectively. ECF No. 82 at 32. The Court otherwise denied the motion for summary judgment. Id. In so doing, the Court found there was a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Officers Santos and Vizzusi were entitled to qualified immunity for using deadly force against Nunez. Id. at 26.
Trial commenced on June 17, 2019. ECF No. 128. At trial, Plaintiff Tony Nunez asserted two claims against Defendants Santos and Vizzusi: (1) a § 1983 claim for violation of Plaintiff Tony Nunez's constitutional right to familial relationship; and (2) a wrongful death claim under California state law that Defendants negligently and wrongfully caused Nunez's death. Defendants denied those claims and asserted two defenses: (1) the defense of self and others, and (2) contributory negligence on the part of Nunez as the cause of his own death.
Plaintiff Estate of Anthony Nunez by and through its personal representative Sandy Sanchez ("Plaintiff Estate") asserted a § 1983 claim against Defendants for the use of excessive force against Nunez. Defendants Michael Santos and Anthony Vizzusi denied this claim and asserted the defense of self and others.
Plaintiffs completed their case-in-chief on June 24, 2019, ECF No. 188 at 793, and Defendants completed their case-in-chief on June 25, 2019, ECF No. 189. On June 25, 2019, at the close of all the evidence and prior to closing arguments, Defendants Michael Santos and Anthony Vizzusi (collectively, "Defendants") moved for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a). ECF No. 189 at 1174-1189. Specifically, Defendants argued they were entitled to qualified immunity from the excessive force claim because "there is ... undisputed evidence that Nunez ... raised and pointed his gun at officers" and that his doing so constituted "an immediate threat to the safety of officers or others" that justified the use of deadly force. ECF No. 189 at 1175, 1179. The Court denied the motion and allowed the entire case to go to the jury.
On July 2, 2019, the jury returned the following verdict. First, the jury found in favor of Plaintiff Estate as to its excessive force claim in the amount of $2.6 million. ECF No. 151 ("Verdict Form") at 2-3, 4. Second, the jury found in favor of Plaintiff Tony Nunez as to his wrongful death claim in the amount of $50,000. Id. at 2-3, 4. With regard to Defendants' contributory negligence defense, the jury found that Nunez was negligent in causing his own death and that he caused 10% of the harm in Plaintiff Tony Nunez's wrongful death claim. Id. at 4. Because the jury found Nunez 10% negligent, the Court reduced the $50,000 award to Plaintiff Tony Nunez by 10% to $45,000. ECF No. 178. Finally, the jury found in favor of Defendants as to Plaintiff Tony Nunez's right to familial relationship claim. Verdict Form at 2-3.
The verdict form also contained questions to aid the Court in its qualified immunity determination. Of relevance here, the jury answered "No" in response to the following questions: (1) "Was Decedent Anthony Nunez pointing a gun at officers at the time Defendant Michael Santos shot Decedent Anthony Nunez?" and (2) "Was Decedent Anthony Nunez pointing a gun at officers at the time Defendant Anthony Vizzusi shot Decedent Anthony Nunez?" Id. at 2-3.
On July 30, 2019, Defendants filed post-trial motions. ECF No. 193 ("Def. Mot."). First, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b), Defendants renew their motion for judgment as a matter of law as to the excessive force claim on the grounds that Defendants' use of deadly force did not rise to the level of excessive force and that even if it did, the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 8; ECF No. 189 at 1181-82. Second, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59, Defendants seek "a new trial on liability and/or a remittitur because the jury's verdict and award were against the weight of the evidence, and the amount of damages awarded to Plaintiff Estate is excessive." Def. Mot. at 2. As to damages, the Rule 59 motion purports to challenge only the amount of damages awarded to Plaintiff Estate—that is, the award for the excessive force claim—and not the amount of damages awarded to Plaintiff Tony Nunez for the wrongful death claim.
Plaintiffs filed their opposition on August 5, 2019, ECF No. 197, and Defendants filed their reply on August 8, 2019, ECF No. 200.
Because Defendants' motions require the Court to consider the sufficiency of the evidence in support of the jury's verdict in favor of Plaintiffs, the Court briefly summarizes the evidence at trial. The Court focuses on the evidence relevant to the instant motions.
Plaintiffs' first witness was Juan Cervantes. See ECF No. 186, Tr. at 242. Cervantes was Nunez's cousin. Id. at 289. At the time of the incident, Cervantes lived with Nunez and several other individuals at 994 Feller Avenue—the house where the shooting took place. Id. at 287. Specifically, as on July 4th, 2016, the following individuals lived at 994 Feller Avenue: Cervantes, Nunez, Cervantes's aunt Sandy Sanchez and her husband Jesse and their daughter Anissa, Cervantes's cousin Jose, and Cervantes's cousin Jesse. Id. at 288. Cervantes said that he had been living at 994 Feller Avenue with Nunez for "about six months." Id. at 289. Cervantes and Nunez also worked at the same grocery store, Mi Pueblo. Id. at 293.
Cervantes testified that, "in the days leading up to July 4th," Nunez "didn't want to eat right, he didn't want to go to work, he was very sad." Id. at 300. According to Cervantes, Nunez had missed work and had told Cervantes "that he wanted to kill himself" and "that he wanted to die." Id. at 303-04, 329. The reason for Nunez's sadness, said Cervantes, was that several family members living at 994 Feller Avenue left San...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Miracle v. Hobbs, CV-19-04694-PHX-SRB
-
Ball v. Cocke Cnty.
...lends no support to Plaintiffs theories. The district court opinions cited by Annie Ball fare no better. In Nunez v. Santos, 427 F. Supp. 3d 1165, 1184-86 (N.D. Calif. 2019) a jury held that officers used excessive force by shooting a man who was suicidal. In that case, the officers shot th......
-
Estate of Tindle v. Mateu
...2013). In the usual case, "courts infer those factsfrom the jury's verdict and the theories presented at trial." Nunez v. Santos, 427 F. Supp. 3d 1165, 1188 (N.D. Cal. 2019). In this case, the Court also has benefit of the jury's responses to the special interrogatories. Given the jury's ve......
-
Sokmen v. United States
... ... consciously suffered in the time between the trauma and ... death.”); cf. Nunez v. Santos, 427 F.Supp.3d 1165, 1190 ... (N.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2019) (recognizing that “pre-death ... pain and suffering damages” in 42 ... ...