Eva Gutierrez et al v. County of Los Angeles et al, No. 2:2010cv07608 - Document 217 (C.D. Cal. 2013)
Court Description: JUDGMENT by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez, in favor of Dionicio Gutierrez, Eva Gutierrez against David W Salazar: IT IS NOW THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that final judgment in this action be entered as follows: 1. Judgment in the sum of 6;500,000.00 plus costs, interest and attorneys' fees is entered against Defendant David Salazar in favor of Plaintiffs Maria Eva Gutierrez and Dionicio Lara Gutierrez. 2. Judgment in the sum of $1,500,000.00 plus costs, interest and attorn eys fees is entered against Defendants David Salazar and County of Los Angeles in favor of Maria Eva Gutierrez and Dionicio Lara Gutierrez. 3. The total judgment in favor of the plaintiffs is $2,000,000.00, plus costs, interest and attorneys' fees as prevailing parties at trial. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (bm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Eva Gutierrez et al v. County of Los Angeles et al Doc. 217 5 DALE K. GALIPO, Esq., Bar No. 144074 MELANIE T. PARTOW, Esq., Bar No. 254843 Law Offices of Dale K. Galipo 21800 Burbank Boulevard, Suite 310 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 347-3333 Facsimile: (818) 347-4118 dalekgalipo@yahoo.com mpartow@galipolaw.com 6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 1 2 3 4 E-FILED 11/18/13 JS-6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 MARIA EVA GUTIERREZ, individually and as successor in interest to EFRAIN LARA GUTIERREZ; and DIONICIO GUTIERREZ, individually and as successor in interest to EFRAIN LARA GUTIERREZ, 16 17 18 19 20 21 Plaintiffs, vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; DEPUTY DAVID W. SALAZAR, an individual, Defendants. ) Case No. CV10-7608 PSG (AJWx) ) ) [Honorable, Philip S. Gutierrez] ) ) [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -1[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT This action came on regularly for trial on September 24, 2013 in Courtroom 3 880 of the United States District Court, Central District of California, Honorable 4 Philip S. Gutierrez, presiding. Plaintiffs, Maria Gutierrez and Dionicio Gutierrez 5 were represented by attorney Dale K. Galipo and Melanie T. Partow of the Law 6 Offices of Dale K. Galipo. Defendants County of Los Angeles and David Salazar 7 were represented by Dennis Gonzales and Raymond Sakai of Lawrence Beach 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Allen & Choi, PC. A jury of eight persons was regularly empanelled and sworn. Witnesses were sworn and testified. After hearing the evidence and arguments of counsel, the jury was duly instructed by the Court and the case was submitted to the jury. The jury deliberated and thereafter returned a verdict as follows: QUESTION 1: Did Deputy Salazar use excessive or unreasonable force against Efrain Lara Gutierrez? 16 ____X____ YES ___________ NO 17 18 19 QUESTION 2: What are the decedent’s damages? 20 21 Efrain Lara Gutierrez $ 500,000.00 22 23 24 25 QUESTION 3: What are the Plaintiffs’ damages resulting from the death of their son, Efrain Lara Gutierrez? 26 27 Maria Gutierrez $750,000.00 28 Dionicio Gutierrez $750,000.00 -2- [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT 1 2 IT IS NOW THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that final judgment in this action be entered as follows: 3 4 1. Judgment in the sum of $500,000.00 plus costs, interest and attorneys’ 5 fees is entered against Defendant David Salazar in favor of Plaintiffs Maria Eva 6 Gutierrez and Dionicio Lara Gutierrez. 7 8 9 10 11 12 2. Judgment in the sum of $1,500,000.00 plus costs, interest and attorneys’ fees is entered against Defendants David Salazar and County of Los Angeles in favor of Maria Eva Gutierrez and Dionicio Lara Gutierrez. 3. The total judgment in favor of the plaintiffs is $2,000,000.00, plus costs, interest and attorneys’ fees as prevailing parties at trial. IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 15 16 17 11/18/13 Dated: ________________ __________________________________ Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez United States District Court Central District of California 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
]]>
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.
