J. J. V. CITY OF SAN DIEGO, ET AL, No. 20-55622 (9th Cir. 2024)

Annotate this Case

This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on November 15, 2021.

Download PDF
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT J. K. J., individually, and successor in interest to the Deceased Aleah Jenkins, by and through his guardian-ad-litem Jeremy Hillyer, No. 20-55622 D.C. No. 3:19-cv-02123CAB-RBB Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ORDER CITY OF SAN DIEGO, a public entity; DAVID NISLET, in his individual capacity and official capacity as Police Chief of the San Diego Police Department; LAWRENCE DURBIN, an individual; JASON TAUB, an individual; DOES, 1-10, Inclusive, Defendants-Appellees, and NICHOLAS CASICOLA, Defendant. 2 J.K.J. V. CITY OF SAN DIEGO Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Cathy Ann Bencivengo, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted En Banc June 21, 2023 Submission Vacated February 1, 2024 Resubmitted November 21, 2024 Seattle, Washington Filed November 27, 2024 Before: Mary H. Murguia, Chief Judge, and Morgan Christen, Michelle T. Friedland, Mark J. Bennett, Eric D. Miller, Bridget S. Bade, Kenneth K. Lee, Patrick J. Bumatay, Lawrence VanDyke, Jennifer Sung and Roopali H. Desai, Circuit Judges. COUNSEL Megha Ram (argued) and Devi Rao, Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center, Washington, D.C.; Kaveh Navab I, Navab Law APC, Marina Del Rey, California; H. Dean Aynechi and Neama Rahmani, West Coast Trial Lawyers, Los Angeles, California; for Plaintiff-Appellant. James C. Jardin (argued), Collins and Collins LLP, Orange, California; Christie B. Swiss, Collins and Collins LLP, Carlsbad, California; Seetal Tejura, Chief Deputy City Attorney; George F. Schaefer, Assistant City Attorney; Mara W. Elliot, City Attorney; Office of the City Attorney, San Diego, California; for Defendants-Appellees. J.K.J. V. CITY OF SAN DIEGO 3 Jay R. Schweikert and Clark M. Neily III, Cato Institute, Washington D.C., for Amicus Curiae Cato Institute. ORDER The parties’ joint motion to dismiss the appeal is GRANTED. Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. This order constitutes the mandate of this court.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.