Mitchell v. County of Los Angeles

Good Law
332 F. App'x 369
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 15, 2009No. 07-55206California393 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Defendants Los Angeles County and Deputy Rick Manes appeal the district court’s denial of their motion for a new damages trial. Plaintiffs tried state wrongful death, Fourth Amendment excessive force and Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claims arising out of Deputy Manes’s shooting of Robert Mitchell. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

We review the denial of a new trial for an abuse of discretion and the compensatory damages verdict for substantial evidence. Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 728 (9th Cir.2007); In re Exxon Valdez, 270 F.3d 1215, 1247 (9th Cir.2001). We give “substantial deference to a jury’s finding of the appropriate amount of damages,” and we “must uphold the jury’s findings unless the amount is grossly excessive or monstrous, clearly not sup *370 ported by the evidence, or based only on speculation or guesswork.” Exxon Valdez, 270 F.3d at 1248 .

Defendants challenge damages for the state wrongful death and excessive force claims. But defendants waived any right to separate damages for the claims by agreeing to a general verdict. Ayuyu v. Tagabuel, 284 F.3d 1023, 1026 (9th Cir.2002). Viewing the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.