$3.06M Verdict: CHP Officer Found Liable in Chavez Death

Case Background

The legal dispute, formally titled Maritza Padilla, et al. v. California Highway Patrol, et al., originated from a tragic incident that resulted in the death of Leonel Chavez. The case, filed on January 6, 2022, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, culminated in a jury trial presided over by Judge Theresa M. Traber in February 2025.

Cause

The core of the complaint centered on the fatal shooting of Leonel Chavez by a California Highway Patrol (CHP) officer. The Plaintiffs alleged that Officer Daniel Castaneda initially identified only as a Doe officer in the complaint negligently used deadly force during the encounter. They maintained that the officer acted without reasonable care, and that the CHP itself bore responsibility for the incident due to inadequate training, supervision, and policy enforcement regarding the use of force.

Injury

The action was filed as a wrongful death and survival action on behalf of Mr. Chavez’s successors in interest, including Maritza Padilla and Jesus Chavez. The irreparable injury was the death of Leonel Chavez, which occurred as a direct result of the officer's use of force.

Damages Sought

The family, representing the estate and themselves, pursued substantial financial recovery. They sought compensation for economic losses, including the financial support and earning capacity Mr. Chavez would have provided to his family. Additionally, they sought non-economic damages for the immense grief and loss of comfort, society, companionship, and moral support suffered by the family. They also claimed damages for the mental and physical pain and suffering Mr. Chavez endured before his death. The family further requested punitive damages against the individual officers, arguing their actions demonstrated a reckless disregard for Mr. Chavez's rights and safety.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

The trial unfolded over several weeks in Los Angeles Superior Court, where attorneys presented evidence and testimony concerning the moments leading up to the fatal shooting and the subsequent actions of the department.

Legal Representation

Plaintiff(s): Maritza Padilla, individually and as Successor in Interest to Leonel Chavez; and Jesus Chavez, individually and as Successor in Interest to Leonel Chavez.

·       Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Humberto M. Guizar | Christian Contreras | Panah Setareh | Ramin R. Younessi | Setareh Panah

Defendant(s): California Highway Patrol, a governmental agency of the State of California | Daniel Castaneda.

·       Counsel for Defendant(s): Christopher M. Hill | David Adida | Jeffrey M. Phillips | Lee H. Roistacher | Rob Bonta | Mitchell D. Dean | Kimberly A. Sullivan

·       Joint Witness List: Brice Hunt | Roger Clark | Clarence R. Chapman | Paris Ward | Micheal J. Kuzel | Healther Heider | Gary M. Vilke | J.Chen

Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel

The two sides offered dramatically different narratives of the confrontation. The arguments spanned the officer’s immediate decisions in the field and the CHP’s broader institutional responsibility.

Claims

The Plaintiffs filed several distinct claims against the officer and the CHP, arguing that the events constituted both negligence and civil rights violations.

Negligence and Battery: The legal team for the Chavez family argued that Officer Castaneda’s decision to fire his weapon was unreasonable, constituting negligence and an unwarranted battery. They contended that the officer breached his duty of care to Mr. Chavez, and that this failure caused his death.

Civil Rights Violations: The complaint claimed violations of Mr. Chavez's Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution, alleging that the force used was excessive and that Mr. Chavez was denied due process. They also pursued a claim under the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, asserting that the Defendants interfered with Mr. Chavez’s rights through threats, intimidation, or coercion.

Institutional Failures (Monell Claim): Against the CHP, the family argued that a pattern of poor training, customs, or policies directly contributed to the officer’s actions. The Plaintiffs needed to prove the CHP's institutional deficiencies were a causal link in Mr. Chavez's death.

Defense

The defense, representing the CHP and Officer Castaneda, mounted a firm counter-argument, denying any wrongdoing and asserting that the officer’s actions were necessary, lawful, and reasonable under the tense, split-second circumstances he faced.

The defense primarily contended that Officer Castaneda acted in self-defense or the defense of others, and that the use of deadly force was justified because the officer had a reasonable belief that Mr. Chavez posed an immediate threat of death or serious injury. Furthermore, the defense raised numerous affirmative defenses, including governmental immunities that often shield public employees from liability, and comparative negligence, arguing that Mr. Chavez himself contributed to the dangerous situation by his own actions.

Jury Verdict

Following weeks of testimony, arguments, and deliberation, the jury returned a Special Verdict Form on February 26, 2025, which confirmed that both Officer Castaneda and the California Highway Patrol were responsible for Mr. Chavez's death, though they also assigned a significant degree of fault to the decedent himself.

The jury specifically determined that Officer Castaneda negligently used deadly force and that this negligence was a substantial factor in causing Mr. Chavez's death. In a critical finding regarding the department's role, the jury also concluded that the California Highway Patrol was negligent in its training and supervision of Officer Castaneda, and that this institutional negligence was also a substantial factor in the fatal outcome.

After finding liability, the jury determined the total value of damages suffered by Mr. Chavez’s family. They awarded $1,000,000 for past economic loss suffered by the family from the date of the incident through the date of the verdict. They also awarded $4,000,000 for the future loss of Mr. Chavez’s love, companionship, comfort, care, and society. Finally, the jury assigned $1,000,000 for the pre-death pain and suffering Mr. Chavez endured, bringing the total determined damages to $6,000,000 before any adjustments.

Crucially, the jury agreed with the defense’s argument for comparative negligence, finding that Leonel Chavez was also negligent, and that his negligence was a substantial factor in causing his own death.

In the final apportionment of responsibility, the jury assigned 51% of the fault to Officer Castaneda and 49% of the fault to Leonel Chavez. The percentage assigned to a third party, Megan Jackson, was zero.

Based on the total damages of $6,000,000 and the 51% share of responsibility assigned to the Defendants (Officer Castaneda and the CHP), the final amount awarded to the Chavez family was calculated. The Court entered a verdict against the California Highway Patrol and Officer Castaneda for $3,060,000, reflecting the $6 million total damages reduced by the 49% comparative fault assigned to Leonel Chavez. The verdict concluded a lengthy and emotionally charged legal battle over the officer’s actions and the circumstances that led to the death of Leonel Chavez.

Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com