This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/29/2019 at 12:17:46 (UTC).

DOMINIQUE EVANS ET AL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/09/2018 DOMINIQUE EVANS filed a Civil Right - Other Civil Right lawsuit against COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are GREGORY W. ALARCON and MICHAEL P. LINFIELD. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6951

  • Filing Date:

    03/09/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Civil Right - Other Civil Right

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

GREGORY W. ALARCON

MICHAEL P. LINFIELD

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

JOHNSON DARRYL

EVANS DOMINIQUE

Defendants and Respondents

PASADENA CITY OF

ORENT DANA

LOS ANGELES COUNTY OF

HAARRIS DIANE

RODRIGUEZ MIKE

BROWN JOHNNY

LILLIENFELD MARK

SICA GARY

HARRIS DIANE

CITY OF PASADENA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

PETALE ALEXANDER J. ESQ.

PETALE ALEXANDER JOHN

PETALE ALEXANDER J.

Attorney at Law Offices of Alexander J. Petale

504 S Alvarado St. No. 207

Los Angeles, CA 90057

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

BAGNERIS MICHELE BEAL CITY ATTORNEY

LAWRENCE BEACH ALLEN & CHOI PC

BEACH PAUL B.

BAGNERIS MICHELE BEAL

LEE ARNOLD F.

 

Court Documents

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore - ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE DANA SHELLEY, CSR# 10177

11/5/2019: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore - ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE DANA SHELLEY, CSR# 10177

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO THE CRIMINAL CLERK OF THE BURBANK COURT TO PRODUCE CONFIDENTIAL AND SEALED RECORDS FROM PLAINTIFFS' CRIMINAL TRIALS

9/3/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO THE CRIMINAL CLERK OF THE BURBANK COURT TO PRODUCE CONFIDENTIAL AND SEALED RECORDS FROM PLAINTIFFS' CRIMINAL TRIALS

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS)

8/1/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINNUE HEARING DATE FOR...)

7/9/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINNUE HEARING DATE FOR...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

6/28/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Request for Refund / Order

6/19/2019: Request for Refund / Order

Answer - ANSWER AMENDED ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY CITY OF PASADENA AND DANA ORENT

6/10/2019: Answer - ANSWER AMENDED ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY CITY OF PASADENA AND DANA ORENT

Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER TO ALLOW LEAVE FOR DEFENDANTS CITY OF PASADENA AND DANA ORENT TO FILE THEIR AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

6/6/2019: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER TO ALLOW LEAVE FOR DEFENDANTS CITY OF PASADENA AND DANA ORENT TO FILE THEIR AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Stipulation - No Order - Stipulation - No Order to continue trial

1/3/2019: Stipulation - No Order - Stipulation - No Order to continue trial

Reply - Reply BRIEF

10/17/2018: Reply - Reply BRIEF

Ex Parte Application - Ex Parte Application to continue hearing

10/24/2018: Ex Parte Application - Ex Parte Application to continue hearing

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA OF DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

9/18/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA OF DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

NOTICE OF DISSOCIATION OF COUNSEL

8/28/2018: NOTICE OF DISSOCIATION OF COUNSEL

Minute Order -

6/28/2018: Minute Order -

CIVIL DEPOSIT -

7/5/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT -

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

6/15/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

ANSWER-PERSONAL INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH -

5/15/2018: ANSWER-PERSONAL INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH -

SUMMONS -

3/9/2018: SUMMONS -

65 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/08/2020
  • Hearing06/08/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 34 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/27/2020
  • Hearing05/27/2020 at 09:00 AM in Department 34 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/27/2020
  • Hearing01/27/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 34 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/27/2020
  • Hearing01/27/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 34 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/26/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 34; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/26/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 34; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/21/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 34; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 34; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to Continue Hearing Date of Defense Motion for Summary Judgment) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2019
  • DocketOrder Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore (Dana Shelley, CSR# 10177)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application to Continue Hearing Date of D...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
138 More Docket Entries
  • 04/02/2018
  • DocketMinute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2018
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2018-04-02 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2018
  • DocketFirst Amended Complaint; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2018
  • DocketFirst Amended Complaint; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2018
  • DocketFIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2018
  • DocketPEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDICIAL OFFICER (CODE CIV. PROC., SECTION 170.6)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2018
  • DocketChallenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Dominique Evans (Plaintiff); Darryl Johnson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; 1. VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGITS (42 U.S.C. 1983) ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC696951    Hearing Date: January 29, 2020    Dept: 34

SUBJECT: Motion for Leave to File SAC

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Dominique Evans and Darryl Johnson

Resp. Party: Defendants City of Pasadena and Dana Orent

Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND:

Plaintiffs Dominique Evans and Darryl Johnson commenced this action on March 09, 2018. The operative first amended complaint (“FAC”), filed March 27, 2018 against County of Los Angeles, City of Pasadena, Dana Orent, Dianne Harris, Mark Lillienfeld, Mike Rodriguez, Johnny Brown, and Gary Sica, asserts causes of action for (1) Violation of Civil Rights; (2) Conspiracy to Violate Civil Rights; (3) False Imprisonment; (4) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (5) Malicious Prosecution.

Plaintiffs allege they were arrested on May 21, 2013, as suspects in the murder of Johnis Demar Jackson on June 21, 1997. Plaintiffs allege that various defendant police officers affiliated with Defendants County of Los Angeles and City of Pasadena, undertook an illegitimate and/or ineffective investigation that ultimately led to Plaintiffs’ arrest. Plaintiffs allege they suffered numerous civil rights violations throughout their detention and trial. After approximately four years, Plaintiffs were acquitted and released.

On July 9, 2019, the Court, pursuant to an oral request made by Plaintiff, dismissed the action with prejudice as to Johnny Brown.

On August 1, 2019, the Court granted without leave to amend Defendants County of Los Angeles, Detectives Diane Harris, Mark Lillienfeld, Gary Sica, and Michael Rodriguez (“County Defendants”)’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.

On August 19, 2019, dismissal was entered as to the 4th and 5th causes of action as to Defendants City of Pasadena and Dana Orent.

On September 3, 2019, the Court granted Defendants County of Los Angeles, Mark Lillienfeld, Diane Harris, Mike Rodriguez, and Gary Sica’s ex parte application for an order to the criminal clerk of the Burbank Court to produce confidential and sealed records from Plaintiffs’ criminal trials.

On January 6, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (“SAC”).

ANALYSIS:

A. Legal Standard

The court may, in furtherance of justice and on any proper terms, allow a party to amend any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1); Branick v. Downey Savings & Loan Association (2006) 39 Cal.4th 235, 242.) The court may also, in its discretion and after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a); Branick, supra, 39 Cal.4th at 242.) “This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.) Leave to amend is thus liberally granted, provided there is no statute of limitations concern. (Kolani v. Gluska (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 402, 411.) The court may deny the plaintiff’s leave to amend if there is prejudice to the opposing party, such as delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation. (Id.)

Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, a motion to amend a pleading before trial must (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; (2) state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and (3) state what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).) A separate supporting declaration specifying (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) the reason why the request for amendment was not made earlier must accompany the motion. (Id., rule 3.1324(b).)

B. Discussion

Plaintiffs move for an order allowing them to file a SAC that would “add . . . causes of action pursuant to 42 USC 1983 and 42 USC 1985(3).” (Motion, p. 3:11-12.) Plaintiff seek leave to amend because “based upon the depositions taken in November of 2019 and after reviewing some of the trial testimony of the Defendants in the underlying criminal matters, it has been established that the Plaintiffs have a factual basis on which it can be alleged that they were the victims of a conspiracy to deny their Federal and California state Constitutional right, to the Equal Protection of the law based; upon the same operative facts as originally pled.” (Id. at p. 2:6-12.)

Plaintiffs’ proposed amendment, to supersede the existing FAC, is to delete the following:

· Page 2, paragraph, lines 9-13, defendants Diane Harris, Johnny Brown and Gary Sica are to be dismissed and the allegations are deleted.

· Page 3, paragraph 7 i.e. the allegations re: Diane Harris are deleted. Page 4, paragraph 11, allegations regarding Johnny Brown are deleted, and paragraph 12 on Pages 4 to 5, i.e., the allegations re: Gary Sica are deleted.

· Pages 6 through Pages 29, i.e., the Factual Allegations, have been eliminated and replaced by Pages 7, starting at l. 7 through Page 16, at l. 20.

· Starting at Page 30, l. 13, the First Cause of Action in the First Amended Complaint, for Violation of Civil Rights, Re: Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1 has been moved to Page 18 of the Second Amended Complaint, and realleged in its entirety to page 18 of the Second Amended Complaint, commencing at l. 13., therefore eliminating paragraphs 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 and 111 of the First Amended Complaint.

· Starting at Page 31, l. 21, of the First Amended Complaint, alleged as the Second Cause of Action for Violation of Civil Rights, Re: Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1 has been eliminated in its entirety, therefore eliminating paragraphs 112, 113, 114, 115 and 116 of the First Amended Complaint.

· Starting at Page 32, l. 14, of the First Amended Complaint, the allegations of False Imprisonment have been moved to the Second Amended Complaint, and alleged as the First Cause of Action in the Second Amended Complaint, starting at Page 16, l. 17 of that pleading and continuing page 18, at I. 13. Therefore paragraphs 117, 118, 119 and 120 of the First Amended Complaint have been eliminated.

· Starting at Page 33, l. 8 of the First Amended Complaint, the Cause of Action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and been dismissed. Therefore paragraphs 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, have been eliminated.

· Starting at Page 34, I. 1 of the First Amended Complaint, the Cause of Action for Malicious Prosecution has been dismissed. Therefore paragraphs 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132 and 133 have been eliminated.

· Starting at Page 35 of the First Amended Complaint; in the PRAYER of the Complaint, at allegations in Paragraph 134, incorporating by reference the allegations of the Complaint at l. 6 through 7 are eliminated. The Prayer has been revised and amended as stated below in the ADDED ALLEGATIONS.” (Id. at pp. 6:22-8:5.)

Plaintiffs’ proposed amendment also adds the following allegations:

· On pages 1 through 3, starting at line 26 on page 1 through page 3, l. 7 the Introduction in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 have been added.

· On Page 3 at l. 17, paragraph 5 has been added alleging this Court's jurisdiction to take up causes of action pursuant to 42 USC 1983 and 42 USC 1985(3) has been added, with the applicable case law.

· On Page 6, 1. 16, paragraph 13, continuing to page 7, l. 5, allegations have been added regarding the conspiracy to deny and violate the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights to the equal protection of the laws .

· On Page 7, l. 7 continuing through page 16, 1. 15, the Factual Allegations Common to All Causes of Action have been revised and reduced to allege only the facts necessary to state the elements of the causes of action and eliminating unnecessary details.

· On Page 10, l. 1 overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy between Dana Orent and Eric Thomas are added from l. 1 through 1. 11 of page 10, of the Second Amended Complaint.

· On Page 11, l. 21, starting at paragraph 24, and continuing to page 14 at l. 4, the allegations of the overt acts committed by Dana Orent and Artesia Daniels are added to 1 the Second Amended Complaint.

· On Page 15, l. 8 through l. 15, a summary of the contradictory statements and testimony of witness Gina Riley has been added to the Second Amended Complaint.

· On Page 15 l. 21 through Page 16, l. 3, the allegations of the damages caused by the conspiracies engaged in by Dana Orent, Erie Thomas and Artesia Daniels, is alleged and added to the Second Amended Complaint.

· On Page 16, l. 8 through l. 16, the systemic pattern of conduct, engaged in by Defendant Dana Orent, to accomplish a violation of the Constitutional Rights of the Plaintiffs to the equal protection of the laws, is alleged and added to the Second Amended Complaint.

· On Page 17, l. 18 through page 18, l. 7 alleges facts which state how the conspiracy caused the Plaintiffs additional damages; have been alleged and added to the Second Amended Complaint.

· On Page 19, l. 1 through l. 6 of paragraph 41 states facts regarding how the Defendants coerced informant Eric Thomas to give false facts and testimony in furtherance of the conspiracy, i.e., overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy.

· On Page 19, l. 7 through l. 19 of paragraph 42, facts regarding the overt acts committed by Eric Thomas in furtherance of the conspiracy, are alleged and have been added to the Second Amended Complaint.

· On Page 19, l. 20 through page 20, l. 23, in paragraph 43 facts regarding the overt acts committed by Artesia Daniels, in furtherance of the conspiracy, are alleged and have been added to the Second Amended Complaint.

· On Page 20, 1. 24 through page 2t, l. 15 in paragraphs 44 and 45, facts regarding e the overt acts committed by Devon Howard, Dana Orent, and Mike Rodriguez in furtherance of the conspiracy, are alleged and have been added to the Second Amended Complaint.

· On Page 22, l. 7 through page 24, l. 8, in paragraphs 48, 49, 50, 51 and 52, facts are alleged which demonstrate how the Plaintiffs' constitutional right to the equal protection of the law was violated by the Defendants, who acted under color of state law, acting in conspiracy with Eric Thomas, Artesia Daniels and Devon Howard. These allegations have been added to the Second Amended Complaint, in the Third Cause of Action for violation of 42 USC 1983.

· On Page 24, l. 9 through page 26; l. 18, in paragraphs 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 and 61 facts are alleged in the Fourth Cause of Action for Conspiracy, i.e., 42 USC 1985(3), demonstrating how the conspiracy to violate the Constitutional rights of the Plaintiffs occurred and how the purpose of the conspiracy was fulfilled, over the course of 19 years, to systematically deny the Constitutional right of the equal protection of the law to African-Americans accused of gang related crimes in the Pasadena-Altadena area, including the Plaintiffs in the underlying criminal matters of LASC Case Numbers GA089805 and GA100018.

· On Page 26, l. 20 through page 27, l. 15, allegations are added to the Prayer of the Complaint seeking recovery of medical special damages for medical treatment received for injuries suffered due to the conditions of confinement in the L. A. County Jail.

· At page 27, 1. 6, allegations are added to the Prayer, seeking compensation for the additional costs of defense caused by the complained of conspiracy.

· At Page 27, l. 9, allegations are added that the Plaintiffs are seeking punitive damages for fraud, malice and oppression and on Page 27 at l. 13, Plaintiff are seeking recovery of attorney fees per California Civil Code § 52.1(i).” (Id. at pp. 8:6-11:4.)

Plaintiffs’ motion complies with the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324 and there exists good cause for allowing the amendment. The declaration submitted in support of the motion satisfies the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324 because there is a clear explanation for why this amendment is sought now. Plaintiff’s counsel declares “by the end of December of 2019, it became apparent to [him] that there really was a factual basis to allege a grand conspiracy, to violate the Constitutional Rights of the African-American community in the Pasadena-Altadena area; whether some of the members of this community were criminal street gang members or not[.]” (Petale Decl., ¶7.) The declaration identifies (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (See Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(b); see also Petale Decl., ¶¶ 3-7.)

Defendants filed a response stating that they do not oppose this motion and Defendants have not indicated that they will be prejudiced by this amendment. The Court is to exercise discretion liberally the permit amendment of the pleadings. (Kittredge Sports Co., 213 Cal.App.3d at 1047.)

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.