Boaz Q Balenti v. Scott McManus et al
Filing
164
JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT by Judge Cormac J. Carney. It appearing by reason of said verdict that: Defendants are entitled to judgment against Plaintiff. IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Plaintiff take nothing by his First Amended Complaint filed herein on December 20, 2010 and Defendants City of Anaheim and Scott McManus recover from Plaintiff their costs to be awarded at a later date. Related to: Jury Verdict (Proposed) 163 (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (nbo)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
JS-6
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
200 S. ANAHEIM BOULEVARD, SUITE 356
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92805
(714) 765-5169
FAX (714) 765-5123
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF ANAHEIM
10
11
BOAZ Q. BALENTI,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
v.
18
SACV10-1159 CJC (JPRx)
Assigned to: Hon. Cormac J. Carney
Dept.:
9B
JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT
CITY OF ANAHEIM POLICE
OFFICER SCOTT McMANUS, et
al,
16
17
Case No.:
Trial
Date:
Time:
Place:
July 23, 2013
9:00 a.m.
Ctrm. 9B
Defendants.
Action Filed:
Trial Date:
12/02/10
July 23, 2013
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. SACV10-1159 CJC (JPRx)
1
This action came on regularly for trial on July 23, 2013 in Courtroom 9B
2
of the United States District Court, the Hon. Cormac J. Carney, presiding; the
3
Plaintiffs appeared by attorney John P. Kenealy and Cecelia Balenti-Moddelmog,
4
Kenealy Law Offices, and the Defendants appeared by attorney Moses W.
5
Johnson, IV, Assistant City Attorney and Jesse Jacobs, Deputy City Attorney.
6
A jury of 8 persons was regularly impaneled and sworn. Witnesses were
7
sworn and testified. After hearing the evidence and arguments of counsel, the
8
jury was duly instructed by the Court and the cause was submitted to the jury
9
with directions to return a special verdict. The jury deliberated and thereafter
200 S. ANAHEIM BOULEVARD, SUITE 356
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92805
(714) 765-5169
FAX (714) 765-5123
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF ANAHEIM
10
11
returned into Court with its verdict as follows:
1.
Did Plaintiff prove by a preponderance of evidence that Officer
12
McManus violated his civil rights by using unreasonable (excessive) force in
13
arresting and/or detaining him?
14
15
Yes
X
No
16
17
18
19
It appearing by reason of said verdict that: Defendants are entitled to
judgment against Plaintiff.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED
20
that said Plaintiff take nothing by his first amended complaint filed herein on
21
December 20, 2010, and that Defendants City of Anaheim and Scott McManus
22
have and recover from Plaintiff, their costs to be awarded at a later date.
23
24
DATED: 8/7/13
25
HON. CORMAC J. CARNEY
United States Judge
26
27
28
1
Case No. SACV10-1159 CJC (MLGx)
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
