The JSH Reporter JSH Reporter - Fall 2017 | Page 9

CASES OF NOTE
09
Specifically, although the surgery was deemed a success,
Plaintiff continued to have ongoing pain and limitations, and
his primary doctor opined that he could expect complications
in the future as a result. Consequently, prior to trial, Plaintiff
demanded Defendant’s insurance policy limit of $1 million.
Gabriel Armendariz v. Manuel
Padilla, et al
March 21, 2017
Arizona District Court
Donald Myles & Michele Molinario
The case was filed in Sacramento, California, and Mike was
asked to enter an appearance pro hac vice for purposes of
trying the case. Shortly before trial, the Defendant admitted
fault for the accident and filed a CCP §998 Offer for $250,000.
Mike also filed several motions to limit Plaintiff’s damages,
which successfully resulted in the withdrawal of Plaintiff’s past
lost wage and future economic loss claims.
During the 8-day trial, the Defendant neither disputed that
Plaintiff suffered from a herniated disk, nor that the surgery was
unnecessary or unreasonable. Through cross-examinations
of Plaintiff’s orthopedic surgeon and biomechanical
engineering/accident reconstruction expert, Mike argued
that the circumstantial evidence more strongly suggested the
herniation preexisted the accident, and the accident simply
exacerbated Plaintiff’s condition for a period of approximately
four months. Defendant argued that Plaintiff was entitled to his
medical expenses for the conservative care he received during
these four months, along with compensation for his pain and
suffering, which Mike suggested amounted to a total damage
award of $40,777.19.
Plaintiff asked the jury to award a total of $1,432,318, which
included his medical expenses, scar disfigurement, disability,
and chronic pain and suffering. After two days of deliberation,
the jury awarded Plaintiff $40,777.19. Because Defendant filed
a CCP §998 Offer for $250,000, Defendant was able to recoup
his $32,127.68 in costs leaving a net judgment amount of
$8,649.51.
Don Myles and Michele Molinario prevailed on summary
judgment in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action for false
arrest against a City of Yuma Police Sergeant. The case
involved whether there was probable cause to arrest Plaintiff,
a former border patrol agent. U.S. Border Patrol had revoked
Plaintiff’s enforcement authority and requested he return the
government-issued property in his possession. City of Yuma
police officers sought to assist border patrol in retrieving the
government-issued firearm, badge and credentials, but Plaintiff
refused and gave various conflicting statements about the
location of the property. Plaintiff was then arrested for theft
and false reporting. Plaintiff filed a Cross-Motion for Summary
Judgment.
The central issue in the Motion for Summary Judgment was
whether the Police Sergeant had probable cause to arrest
Plaintiff for either theft or false reporting. District Court Judge
Susan R. Bolton denied Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Summary
Judgment and found that there was probable cause to arrest
for false reporting. Plaintiff’s own testimony confirmed that law
enforcement officers are trained to know the location of their
service weapons and credentials. Based on this understanding,
and Plaintiff’s inconsistent statements about the whereabouts
of the property, a reasonable officer would have suffi cient
grounds to believe that Plaintiff was knowingly providing false
statements. As such, there was no genuine issue for trial.
Alternatively, Judge Bolton found that the Police Sergeant was
entitled to qualified immunity since it could be reasonably
debated whether clearly established law was violated. Judgment
was entered in favor of the Yuma Police Sergeant.
READ THE
REPORTER
ONLINE AT:
JSHFIRM.COM