Keiko Larez, and v. William Holcomb, and Cross-Appellee

Los Angeles Police Department Detective William Holcomb appeals the judgment on a jury verdict in favor of Keiko Larez in La-rez’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Larez’s civil rights complaint alleged that Detective Holcomb stopped her, arrested her, and then detained her for several hours at a police station for questioning without probable cause, in violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. Holcomb asserts that the district court committed reversible error in its jury instructions. Larez cross-appeals the court’s order that denied her motion to impose sanctions on Holcomb’s counsel. Both Larez and Holcomb appeal the district court order awarding attorneys’ fees. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . 1 We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for a new trial on the issue of damages and for a recalculation of the attorneys’ fee following the outcome of the trial on damages.

I. BACKGROUND

On June 8, 1986, Detective William Holcomb began investigating a fatal, gang-related shooting that occurred in East Los Ange-les. Officers at the Hollenbeck Station of the Los Angeles Police Department informed Holcomb that an eyewitness had provided information regarding the possible…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I concur in all parts of the majority opinion except the rulings that the district court erred (1) by instructing the jury that the city would indemnify Officer Holcomb for compensatory damages, and (2) by allowing La-rez’s counsel to tell the jury that the city was authorized to indemnify Officer Holcomb for punitive damages.

1. Jury Instruction Regarding the City’s Indemnification for Compensatory Damages

I disagree with the majority’s ruling that the jury instruction that the city would indemnify Officer Holcomb for compensatory damages was irrelevant to Larez’s damage claim, and thus, improper. The majority reasons that instructions on indemnification only distract a jury and potentially prejudice a defendant by exposing him to an inflated damage award. For authority, the majority relies on Eighth Circuit cases that exclude indemnification evidence in § 1988 eases based on concerns of undue prejudice. See Green v. Baron, 879 F.2d 305, 310 (8th Cir.1989); Griffin v. Hilke, 804 F.2d 1052, 1057 (8th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 914 , 107 S.Ct. 3184, 3185 , 96 L.Ed.2d 673 (1987). The majority also attributes support for its…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I concur in most of Judge Nelson’s opinion, and specifically agree with her that the district court erred by informing the jury that the city would pay any compensatory and punitive damages that might be awarded. However, I would reverse on both liability and damages.

With respect to the first point, I believe that the instruction given on the issue of the plaintiffs consent to arrest was erroneous for at least two reasons: First, and as already noted by Judge Nelson, it placed the burden of proof on the “government,” which was not even a party to this case; and second, it required the defendant to prove that the plaintiff consented to her own arrest.

The defendant denied that there ever was an arrest, contending that the plaintiff had *1526 consented to accompany him and to remain in his company. Such consent would have been a defense to the plaintiffs claim. Moreover, a lawful arrest, defined as the “taking [of] a person into custody ... in the manner authorized by law”, Cal.Pen.Code § 834 (Deering 1993), is not rendered unlawful merely because the arrestee fails to consent to being taken into custody. 1 To require the defendant to…

16 F.3d 1513 Keiko LAREZ, Plaintiff-Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. William HOLCOMB, Defendant-Appellant and Cross-Appellee. Nos. 91-55822, 91-56145, 91-56283 and 91-56284. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Feb. 5, 1993. Decided Feb. 22, 1994. Marion R. Yagman and Stephen Yagman, Yagman & Yagman, Venice, California, for the plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant. Richard M. Helgeson, Assistant City Attorney, Los Angeles, California, for the defendant-appellant-cross-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before: PREGERSON, D.W. NELSON, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges. D.W. NELSON, Circuit Judge: 1 Los Angeles Police Department Detective William Holcomb appeals the judgment on a jury verdict in favor of Keiko Larez in Larez's 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action. Larez's civil rights complaint alleged that Detective Holcomb stopped her, arrested her, and then detained her for several hours at a police station for questioning without probable cause, in violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. Holcomb asserts that the district court committed reversible error in its jury instructions. Larez cross-appeals the…