David Zuniga V. City Of Los Angeles Et Al
Case Background
On May 27, 2022, David Zuniga filed a civil rights lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles and various LAPD officers after he was hit by a projectile used by the LAPD to disperse a peaceful Black Lives Matter protest. The lawsuit included assault, negligence, and excessive force claims among others.
The case was heard in the United States District Court, California Central (Western Division – Los Angeles). The case was assigned to Judge Consuelo B. Marshall and referred to Magistrate Judge Alka Sagar. [Case number: 2:22cv3665]
Cause
Plaintiff David Zuniga, a 50-year-old monolingual Spanish-speaking resident of Los Angeles County, participated in a peaceful protest in Downtown Los Angeles on May 29, 2020. That evening, Defendant Deputy Chief Jorge Rodriguez, acting as Incident Commander, authorized the use of “less lethal” munitions (LLMs) against demonstrators. Defendants Chief Michael Moore and Does 7-10 also approved and oversaw the deployment of these munitions.
Defendants, including Sergeants Daniel Bunch and Jesus Garcia, led LAPD squads that formed a skirmish line, trapping protesters near City Hall. Officers, including Defendants Miguel Zendejas, Aaron Green, and Gregory Sayers, blocked all exits, effectively kettling the crowd. Zuniga and others asked to leave but were refused.
At approximately 9:35 p.m., LAPD officers, including these Defendants, surrounded the demonstrators. Suddenly, without warning, Defendants Zendejas, Green, and Sayers fired LLMs into the crowd. Officers used these projectiles, intended for specific targeting, recklessly, striking individuals indiscriminately, including those retreating.
Zuniga was hit in the head by one of these munitions. The impact caused immediate pain, bleeding, and temporary unconsciousness. Injured and disoriented, he pleaded for help, but LAPD officers ignored his calls and continued advancing on the protesters.
At the time of the incident, Defendants Does 1-6, identified as other LAPD officers, participated in accosting and assaulting Zuniga. Supervisory personnel, including Does 7-10, acted with the full authority of Defendant City of Los Angeles, which employed all involved officers. Defendants acted within the scope of their duties but without justification, causing Plaintiff’s injuries.
Injury
At approximately 11:00 p.m., nearly two hours after the strike, emergency medical personnel treated Zuniga and transported him to a nearby hospital.
Emergency personnel documented the extent of the Plaintiff’s injuries, noting that a paramedic had to pour a gallon of water over the Plaintiff’s head to remove the blood covering his face and scalp.
Medical professionals continue to evaluate Zuniga’s injuries. As a direct result of being struck by law enforcement’s “less lethal” munitions, Zuniga suffered a severe head injury and laceration. He also sustained hearing loss, a brain injury, and ongoing sensitivity around the scar. The incident left him with emotional and psychological effects, including fear of crowds, fear of police, and depression.
Damages
Zuniga asked the Court to issue a judgment addressing the harm caused by Defendants’ actions. He sought a declaration that Defendants violated his constitutional and legal rights under federal and California law. He also requested the Court to declare that the Defendants’ unconstitutional actions stemmed from policies, customs, or inadequate training and supervision.
Zuniga sought compensation for past and future economic losses caused by Defendants’ conduct. He requested general damages for the physical, mental, and emotional suffering he endured and continues to experience.
Additionally, Zuniga asked for reimbursement of attorneys’ fees under applicable laws, recovery of court costs, pre-and post-judgment interest, and any further relief the Court deemed appropriate.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
- Plaintiff(s): David Zuniga
- Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Denisse O Gastelum | Christian M. Contreras | Selene Estrada-Villela
- Defendant(s): City of Los Angeles | Chief Michael Moore LAPD | Jorge Rodriguez LAPD Deputy Chief | Daniel Bunch | Miguel Zendejas | Aaron Green | Jesus Garcia | Does 1 through 10
- Counsel for Defendant(s): Thomas C. Hurrell | Christina Gasparian | Faraz Kevin Rashidi
Claims
- Excessive Force
Zuniga alleged that the Defendants used unreasonable and unjustified force, violating his constitutional rights. They deployed less-lethal munitions, striking Zuniga in the head while he was unarmed and non-violent. - Failure to Intervene
Defendants failed to intervene when other officers used excessive force. Despite knowing the unlawful actions were taking place, they did not stop the violation of Zuniga’s rights. - Municipal Liability – Unconstitutional Policy, Practice, and Custom
Zuniga argued that the City of Los Angeles and its officials, including Chief Michael Moore, were responsible for policies that led to the violation of his rights. Specifically, the policies regarding the use of force and less-lethal munitions directly harmed him. - Municipal Liability – Ratification
Zuniga claimed that city officials, including Chief Moore, ratified the officers’ actions, effectively approving the use of excessive force. - Failure to Train, Supervise, Discipline, or Correct
Zuniga contended that the City of Los Angeles failed to properly train, supervise, and correct its officers. This lack of training, particularly concerning the use of less-lethal munitions, contributed to the harm he suffered. - Supervisory Liability Causing Constitutional Violations
Defendants Chief Michael Moore and Jorge Rodriguez were personally responsible for the constitutional violations. They authorized and oversaw the use of excessive force, showing a reckless disregard for Zuniga’s rights. - Declaratory Relief
Zuniga sought a legal declaration of his rights, asserting that the Defendants violated federal law while denying his claims. - Violation of the Bane Act
Under California law, Zuniga argued that the Defendants used threats and intimidation during the peaceful protest, infringing on his rights to free speech and assembly, causing physical and emotional harm. - Assault and Battery
Zuniga alleged that the Defendants intentionally caused fear of harmful contact and inflicted physical injuries by using less-lethal munitions, leading to emotional distress and justifying punitive damages. - Negligence
Zuniga asserted that the Defendants were negligent in supervising and training officers, leading to the unlawful use of force against him.
Defense
The answering Defendants raised numerous affirmative defenses in response to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (SAC).
First, they argued the SAC lacked sufficient facts to support a valid claim. They also claimed qualified immunity, barring Plaintiff’s claims, and denied responsibility for any alleged damage. The Defendants further contended the claims were time-barred by the statute of limitations and that Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the California Government Code precluded the action.
They invoked the equitable doctrine of laches, and asserted that Plaintiff’s claims were barred by unclean hands, waiver, and estoppel. The Defendants also attributed any injury to Plaintiff’s negligence and pointed to other parties as potential causes of the damage.
The Defendants claimed immunity from liability under various doctrines, including discretion, mandatory duties, and public officer immunity. They also raised defenses based on assumption of risk, failure to mitigate damages, lack of standing, and failure to comply with procedural requirements such as the California Tort Claims Act.
Lastly, the Defendants asserted statutory immunity, lack of constitutional violations, collateral estoppel, and failure to join necessary parties. They also sought attorney’s fees and argued that Plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages were legally insufficient.
Jury Verdict
On October 10, 2024, an eight-member jury unanimously returned a defense verdict for all Defendants on all causes of action. Accordingly, on November 7, 2024, Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall entered a judgment consistent with the verdict.
Court Documents:
Available upon request
Leave A Comment