Dominguez v. City Of San Jose

Background

The case arose from the September 15, 2017 shooting of Jacob Dominguez by Officer Michael Pina in San Jose. Officers had an arrest warrant for Jacob after an alleged armed robbery. They used vehicles to contain Jacob’s vehicle, displayed firearms, and ordered him to raise his hands. Officer Pina shot Jacob while he was seated in the driver’s seat, killing him. The plaintiffs included Jacob’s estate and his wife, who sued individually and as guardian ad litem for Jacob and their three children. The claims alleged violations of constitutional and statutory rights.

A six-day trial began on August 19, 2022, and the jury returned its verdict on August 31, 2022. The jury found for Jacob’s estate on the Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim, but awarded no punitive damages. It found for the defendants on the Fourteenth Amendment and Bane Act claims. In a special interrogatory, the jury answered yes to whether Jacob dropped his hands and leaned forward before Officer Pina fired.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for a New Trial

Plaintiffs requested a new trial on the Fourteenth Amendment, Bane Act, and punitive-damages claims. They argued that the special interrogatory confused the jury and that jurors considered information outside the evidence, including the consequences of their verdict for Officer Pina.

The court held that the special interrogatory was proper and that the jury’s notes did not show improper confusion. The court also found that the verdict was internally consistent and consistent with the evidence because the Fourteenth Amendment, Bane Act, and punitive-damages claims required more than the showing needed for the Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim. The court further found that plaintiffs had not identified outside evidence the jury considered. It therefore DENIED plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial.

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, a court may award reasonable attorneys’ fees to a prevailing party in a federal civil-rights action. The court determined that plaintiffs were the prevailing party because they won the Fourth Amendment claim. It found that the unsuccessful claims were related to the successful claim because all arose from Jacob’s shooting, and it found that plaintiffs obtained an excellent result.

The court approved hourly rates of $650 for John Kevin Crowley, $500 for Nevin C. Brownfield, and $190 for paralegal Ms. Wagner. It approved 618 hours for Mr. Crowley, 74 hours for Mr. Brownfield after reducing his requested hours for motions and written memoranda, and 85.5 hours for Ms. Wagner. The resulting lodestar—the hours multiplied by the approved rates—was $454,945. The court then applied a 1.2 multiplier and awarded $545,924 in attorneys’ fees.

The court awarded $35,249.11 in costs. It granted some costs that were undisputed or that it found were proper litigation expenses, and denied costs it found were expert fees, duplicative, or unnecessary. The court also granted plaintiffs’ request for a 1.2 multiplier based on the case’s undesirability, noting that Mr. Crowley was the fourth attorney consulted before one agreed to take the case. The court GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.

Defendants’ Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law

The defendants sought judgment as a matter of law, arguing that Officer Pina was entitled to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity can protect a government official from personal liability unless the evidence shows both a constitutional violation and violation of a clearly established right.

The court rejected the argument that no reasonable juror could find excessive force. It viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the estate because the jury had found for the estate on the Fourth Amendment claim. The court cited evidence that Jacob had raised his hands, that no weapon was found in the vehicle, that Officer Pina’s earlier account differed from his trial testimony, that other officers did not shoot, and that expert testimony supported a finding that Jacob’s arm was raised when he was struck by the second bullet. The court concluded that a reasonable juror could find that Officer Pina used excessive force.

The court also concluded that Officer Pina was not entitled to qualified immunity. It determined that, viewing the evidence favorably to the estate and considering the jury’s answer, a reasonable jury could find that Jacob was behaving erratically but was not actively reaching for a weapon or making another threatening movement. The court held that it was clearly established that Officer Pina could not use lethal force in those circumstances. It therefore DENIED defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Defendants’ Motion for a New Trial or Remittitur

The defendants argued that the jury’s $1 million award for Jacob’s pre-death pain and suffering was excessive and sought a new trial or remittitur, meaning a reduction of the damages award.

The court found that the award was not against the weight of the evidence. It cited evidence that, after Jacob was shot, officers sent a police dog into the vehicle; that it remained uncertain whether Jacob was alive; that the dog interacted aggressively with him; and that the dog remained in the vehicle for approximately 47 seconds. The court concluded that the evidence supported the jury’s determination that Jacob survived after being shot and was then mauled by the police dog. It therefore DENIED defendants’ motion for a new trial or remittitur.

Disposition

Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered that plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial was DENIED; plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees was GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law was DENIED; and defendants’ motion for a new trial or remittitur was DENIED.