Jury Sides with County in Civil Rights Case

Case Background

On June 27, 2020, Eriberto Perez and his wife ate dinner with another couple. They went to a nearby bar. An altercation broke out involving Mrs. Perez, Ms. Morrison, and Mr. Hunter. Perez stepped in to protect his wife. San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Deputies Brandon Jarzombek, Kaelin Chan, and two unidentified officers arrived.

Cause of Legal Dispute

Deputy Jarzombek deployed a Taser on Perez without warning. Perez fell, struck his head on the concrete, and lost consciousness. While he was unconscious, Jarzombek deployed the Taser again and pressed his body weight on Perez’s torso, neck, and upper back. Deputies Chan and DOES 1–2 did not intervene. Jarzombek and Chan slammed Perez onto a patrol car.

Injury

Perez sustained head trauma and a shattered left shoulder. Deputies left him in the patrol car for over an hour without medical care. Two weeks later, he underwent surgery with twenty-six screws placed in his shoulder. He lost full function in the shoulder, suffered constant pain, and experienced sleep problems.

Damages

Perez lost his job, car, and home. He could not return to work as a forklift operator due to permanent loss of shoulder function. He sought compensatory and punitive damages under federal and state law.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

• Plaintiff: Eriberto Perez

• Counsel for Plaintiff: Sara E. Yates | G. Warren Bleeker

• Defendants: County of San Bernardino | Sheriff of San Bernardino County | Officer Brandon Jarzombek (individual and official capacities) | Officer Kaelin Chan (individual and official capacities) | San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department | Does 1–10

• Counsel for Defendants: Christopher P. Wesierski | Kathryn Jeanine Harvey | Kristen Rene Rodriguez | Michelle R. Prescott

Claims Against the Defendants

Perez alleged:

1. Excessive Force – violation of the Fourth Amendment.

2. Failure to Provide Medical Care – violation of the Fourth Amendment.

3. Failure to Intervene – against Chan and DOES 1–2.

4. Municipal Liability – Ratification – against the County and Sheriff’s Department.

5. Municipal Liability – Inadequate Training.

6. Municipal Liability – Unconstitutional Custom, Practice, or Policy.

7. Battery – against Jarzombek and Chan.

8. Negligence – against all defendants.

Perez sought general, compensatory, and punitive damages, medical expenses, lost earnings, attorney fees, and a jury trial.

Defense

The County of San Bernardino, the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department, and Deputies Brandon Jarzombek and Kaelin Chan denied liability and raised multiple affirmative defenses. They argued Perez’s complaint failed to state a valid claim and lacked sufficient facts. They contended he did not mitigate damages and that his own negligence, criminal conduct, and assumption of risk contributed to his injuries. They claimed immunity under various federal and state provisions, including qualified immunity, the Federal Civil Rights Act, the California Government Code, and the Eleventh Amendment. They also asserted statutory bars such as the statute of limitations, failure to comply with the California Tort Claims Act, and failure to exhaust remedies.

The defense further maintained that the deputies acted in good faith, with reasonable cause, and within the scope of their lawful duties as peace officers. They denied any constitutional violation, argued no Monell liability existed, and claimed any harm resulted from third-party acts or intervening causes. They sought dismissal of the complaint, recovery of legal costs, and other relief the court deemed proper, and demanded a jury trial.

Jury Verdict

In May 2025, the civil rights case of Eriberto Perez v. County of San Bernardino, et al. went to trial before Judge Hernán D. Vera in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Perez was represented by Sara E. Yates and G. Warren Bleeker, while the County of San Bernardino and Officer Brandon Jarzombek were represented by Christopher P. Wesierski and Kathryn J. Harvey.

After a jury trial beginning May 20, 2025, with witnesses and documentary evidence presented, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the defendants. The court entered judgment for the County and Jarzombek, ordered that Perez take nothing, and awarded the defendants their costs as the prevailing parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54.

Court Documents

Court documents are available for purchase upon request at Jurimatic@exlitem.com