Plaintiffs, young men, sued defendants, off- and on-duty sheriff's deputies and

Posted by Constance Sanchez on March 30th, 2021

Plaintiffs, young men, sued defendants, off- and on-duty sheriff's deputies and county and a civilian, for battery, conspiracy, and california civil jury instructions, 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 violations. The Superior Court of Orange County (California) awarded plaintiffs minimal damages against two defendants, off-duty deputies, and $ 241,644 attorney fees to most of defendants. Plaintiffs appealed.

Plaintiffs, young men, "provoked" defendants, off-duty sheriff's deputies and civilian, into a "street fight." Plaintiffs sued defendants, including on-duty deputies who had responded as the fight was ending, for battery, conspiracy, and 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 violations, and directed a Monell cause of action against defendant county. Two of defendants, off-duty deputies, were found to have been acting under color of law. Plaintiffs received total excessive force/battery damages. Defendant county agreed to pay. The trial court denied plaintiffs their 42 U.S.C.S. § 1988 attorney fees request, but awarded defendants (except one) a similar amount, finding the civil rights claims to have been frivolous. Plaintiffs appealed. The court reversed defendants' attorney fees award, and otherwise affirmed. As plaintiffs had suffered real injuries, and because of the color-of-law finding, the suit was not frivolous. Damages were not inadequate in that the jury finding as to defendant off-duty deputy did not necessarily mean that all the force he used was objectively unreasonable. As plaintiffs' recovery was de minimis and unimportant, the trial court could properly award them no fees.

Award of attorney fees to defendants reversed. Judgment otherwise affirmed. Plaintiffs' suit was not frivolous. As plaintiffs' recovery was de minimis and unimportant, the trial court could properly award them no fees. As jury finding that defendant off-duty deputy was acting "under color of law" did not necessarily mean that all the force he used was unreasonable, de minimis excessive force/battery damages award against him was not inadequate.

Petitioners, a state agency and others, sought mandate relief from an order of respondent Superior Court of Plumas County (California), which granted class certification under Code Civ. Proc., § 382, of negligence and other claims asserted by real parties in interest, residents and business owners in a community where the agency had sought to eradicate an invasive fish species.

The agency applied a poison in a lake and its tributaries. The residents and business owners alleged that the agency's efforts to eradicate the invasive fish had caused a decline in property values and business activity. The court held that the claims were not amenable to class treatment because common issues did not predominate. The court observed that there was no per se rule for determining predominance and that each case had to be considered on its own merits. All of the expert evidence should have been considered together; the trial court erred when it simply listed but did not evaluate the apparent common issues in the declarations supporting the class certification motion, while evaluating the declarations of the defense experts. The predominance requirement was not met as to negligence because foreseeability and causation would have to be determined on an individual basis. Claims for nuisance under Civ. Code, § 3479, 3480, and for inverse condemnation under Cal. Const., art. I, § 19, and U.S. Const., 5th Amend., would require individual inquiries as to the characteristics of each parcel, the owner's expectations, the nature of the business, and the actual loss incurred.

The court granted a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to vacate its certification order and to enter a new order denying class certification.