Daniel Antunez vs. Los Angeles Dodgers, LLC, A Corporation

On February 28, 2024, a Los Angeles jury delivered the verdict in favor of Plaintiff Daniel Antunez against Defendants Los Angeles Dodgers, LLC and  Carlos Mitre in the present personal injury and premises liability case.

Case Background

On April 16, 2019, Plaintiff Daniel Antunez filed the present premises liability lawsuit before the California Superior Court, Los Angeles County. Judges Jill Feeney, Robert S. Draper, Douglas W. Stern, Armen Tamzarian, Timothy Patrick Dillon, Rafael A. Ongkeko, Christopher K. Lui, Georgina T. Rizk, and Jon R. Takasugi presided over the case. [Case number: 19STCV13057]


Plaintiff Daniel Antunez was an individual residing in Los Angeles County, California. Defendant Los Angeles Dodgers, LLC (referred to as “Dodgers”), was a corporation organized under Delaware law, with its principal place of business in Los Angeles County, California.

On April 24, 2018, during a night baseball game between the Los Angeles Dodgers and Florida Marlins at Dodger Stadium, Plaintiff attended the game with Lucy Gonzales, Vanessa Gonzales, and Anthony Gutierrez to celebrate Plaintiff’s birthday.

During the game, Vanessa Gonzales accidentally spilled a beer on a fan sitting below her in the Loge seats, leading to an altercation when security intervened. Plaintiff accompanied Vanessa Gonzales to the Loge concourse where, while speaking with Dodgers’ security personnel (Does 1 to 10), Plaintiff expressed a need to use the restroom. As Plaintiff walked toward the restroom, without provocation, Does 1, 2, and 3 forcibly threw Plaintiff to the ground, with Does 4-10 joining in the altercation. As a result of this incident, Plaintiff sustained a severe ankle fracture, requiring a wheelchair to leave the stadium.

The Plaintiff was handcuffed by Does 1-10 despite not committing any crime nor facing criminal charges. It was alleged that Dodgers’ security personnel, Does 1 to 10, acted contrary to their security duties and that Dodgers were aware of and endorsed their violent behavior. Plaintiff asserted that Dodgers’ actions, along with Does 1-10, amounted to malice, oppression, and willful disregard for Plaintiff’s rights and safety under California law, potentially warranting punitive damages to deter such conduct in the future (California Code of Civil Procedure Section 3294).


As a consequence of Dodgers’ Security actions, Plaintiff suffered a severe ankle fracture due to the conduct of Does 1 to 10. The actions and oversights of Defendant Dodgers resulted in Plaintiff incurring medical expenses, lost earnings, and a future loss of earning capacity, which will be quantified during the trial.

Additionally, the Plaintiff endured lasting physical injuries and emotional distress due to Dodgers’ actions and omissions. The Plaintiff’s freedom of movement was intentionally restricted by the use of handcuffs and physical force by Does 1-10. The use of handcuffs by Does 1-10 caused harm and added to Plaintiff’s suffering from the restraint.


The Plaintiff sought judgment and relief against the Defendants. In the first through third causes of action, the Plaintiff sought general and special damages. For the fourth through seventh causes of action, Plaintiff also sought general and special damages, along with punitive damages. Across all causes of action, Plaintiff requested costs of suit and any additional legal and equitable relief deemed appropriate by the Court.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

  • Plaintiff: Daniel Antunez
    • Counsel for Plaintiff: Peter Russell diDonato
    • Experts for Plaintiff: Roger Clark
  • Defendants: Los Angeles Dodgers, LLC | Danny Choi | Armando Montalvo | Carlos Mitre | Judish Williams | Nicole Griffin | Does 6-50 Inclusive


Plaintiff Daniel Antunez sought judgment and relief against Defendants and each of them as follows:

In the first cause of action for negligence, Plaintiff alleged that Defendants Dodgers, Danny Choi, Armando Montalvo, Carlos Mitre, Judish Williams, Nicole Griffin, and Does 11 through 50 breached their duty of care. They exposed him to dangerous conditions at Dodger Stadium resulting in his injuries.

The second cause of action for premises liability claimed that Defendants Dodgers and Does 11 through 50 failed in their duty to exercise ordinary care for Plaintiff’s safety on their property, where security personnel unjustifiably attacked him.

In the third cause of action for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision, Plaintiff asserted that Defendants Dodgers and Does 11 through 50 failed to hire and supervise competent security personnel.

The fourth cause of action for assault alleged that Defendants Dodgers, Danny Choi, Armando Montalvo, Carlos Mitre, Judish Williams, Nicole Griffin, and Does 6 through 10 intentionally threatened Plaintiff with harm.

The fifth cause of action for battery claimed that Defendants intentionally caused harmful contact with Plaintiff’s person without consent.

The sixth cause of action for false imprisonment asserted that Defendants intentionally deprived Plaintiff of his freedom using handcuffs and force without consent.

Lastly, the seventh cause of action for violation of the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act alleged that Defendants’ actions violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as California Constitution provisions, through their security personnel’s misconduct.


In accordance with California Code of Civil Procedure §431.30, subd. (d), the answering Defendants denied each specific allegation in the unverified Complaint. They contended that the Complaint did not provide sufficient factual basis to establish a cause of action against them. As a first affirmative defense, the Defendants argued that any alleged damages claimed by the Plaintiff were waived due to his actions, or omissions.

They further asserted that Plaintiff’s conduct barred him from asserting any claims for damages or equitable relief against them. Additionally, the Defendants claimed that any loss or damage suffered by Plaintiff was partly caused by his negligent behavior. They argued that Plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk of injury and damages through his conduct. Moreover, the Defendants contended that Plaintiff’s claims were barred by the doctrine of laches and that he failed to mitigate his damages.

They maintained that any potential recovery by Plaintiff should be reduced in proportion to his contributory conduct.. Furthermore, the Defendants alleged that Plaintiff’s claims were subject to reduction or dismissal under the doctrines of comparative negligence and “unclean hands.”

Expert Testimony

The Plaintiff’s retained expert witness, Roger Clark testified concerning the use of force. Defendants, on the other hand, brought in Scott K. Forman to testify regarding the diagnosis and prognosis of Plaintiff. Defendants also brought in expert Philip Sanchez to testify about the use of force.

Jury Verdict

On February 28, 2024, a Los Angeles jury delivered the verdict in favor of Plaintiff Daniel Antunez. The jury found that Defendant Los Angeles Dodgers, LLC  and Defendant Carlos Mitre had been negligent. Their negligence had been a substantial cause in harming the Plaintiff.

None of the Defendants incurred liability for the charges of assault and battery. The court found Defendant Carlos Mitre liable for the false imprisonment of Plaintiff. The jury also found that his conduct caused harm to Plaintiff.

Defendants Danny Choi and Armando Montalvo escaped liability for negligence, assault, battery, false imprisonment, or any conduct that caused harm to Plaintiff.

The total damages awarded to the Plaintiff was $108,500. The breakdown is as follows:

  • Past economic loss: $89,000
    • Medical expenses: $75,000
    • Lost wages: $14,000
  • Non-economic loss: $19,500
    • Past: $12,000
    • Future: $7,500

Court Documents:

Available upon request