Alvarez-Glasman & Colvin is proud to announce that Senior Partner Roger A. Colvin recently obtained an important victory in the California Supreme Court case, Hernandez et al. v. City of Pomona et al.[1] Hernandez et al. v. City of Pomona et al.[1] The decision, handed down on May 28, 2009, held in favor of the City and four Pomona Police Officers, ending a long legal battle with family members of George Hernandez, who was killed in an officer-related shooting in 2001. This is an important decision affecting the area of law enforcement tort liability because it clarifies a previous divide in California legal jurisprudence by establishing the rule that the legal standard of “reasonableness” in a federal 1983 claim based on excessive force is the same as the standard of “reasonableness” applicable in a state negligence action under California law. This decision will likely result in greater judicial efficiency as litigants will not be required to re-litigate the same facts and issues in state court that were previously litigated in federal court.
The events leading up to the case transpired just before dawn on January 16, 2001. A Pomona police officer was patrolling a neighborhood in a marked patrol car when he noticed a Ford Thunderbird approaching in the opposite direction with its headlights off. As the car abruptly pulled to the curb with the engine still running, the officer pulled his car to within 10 feet of the Thunderbird and ordered the two occupants out of the car. Though the driver of the vehicle quickly complied, the passenger, George Hernandez, slid into the empty driver seat and proceeded to lead police on an 18-minute high-speed chase. Following the lengthy pursuit, Hernandez crashed and bailed out of his vehicle, continuing to flee on foot followed by the officer and four others joining the chase. The officer later testified at trial that the fleeing Hernandez had reached forward towards his front pocket while turning to yell that he had a gun. Responding, the officer went for his own gun but, realizing he had lost it at some point in the chase, quickly ran away yelling to another officer that the suspect was armed. Hernandez was eventually brought down by a police dog, allowing the officer to catch up. Believing he heard Hernandez yell that he had a gun, the officer fired his weapon. Other officers arriving at the scene also fired upon Hernandez, who died at the scene.
Hernandez’s family filed suit in federal court under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging the police had used excessive force. Additionally, Hernandez brought a wrongful death claim under California law, alleging the officers had acted negligently in the shooting of Hernandez. After bifurcating the federal and state claims, the federal claims went to trial. The jury unanimously found the officers innocent on all civil rights claims. After the trial, the federal court refused to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction over the state pendant claims.
Thereafter, plaintiffs filed an action for wrongful death in state court against the City. The City demurred to the complaint, claiming that because the reasonableness of officer actions had been tried by jury in federal court, the state negligent wrongful death suit alleging unreasonableness of officer conduct was barred. The trial court agreed with the City and dismissed the suit. However, the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the plaintiff’s could pursue the negligent wrongful death suit based on the pre-shooting conduct of the officers.
On appeal, the Supreme Court evaluated the following two issues: (1) whether the “reasonableness” standard for a federal 1983 claim based on excessive force was the same as a state negligence claim for wrongful death, and (2) whether the pre-shooting conduct was an issue precluded by the federal jury verdict.
First, regarding the reasonableness issue, the High Court held the standard of reasonableness set forth in the Section 1983 action was sufficiently similar to the reasonableness standard in state negligence actions, so that the issue was precluded on collateral estoppel grounds. The Court reasoned that the legal standard to determine reasonableness of conduct was the same under both California and Federal law. Moving on to the second issue, the California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s holding. The High Court carefully analyzed every stage of the pre-shooting conduct of the officers and found that based on the conceded facts relating to the officers’ pre-shooting conduct, there was no factual basis for a claim based on pre-shooting negligence.
Alvarez-Glasman & Colvin is proud to announce this favorable result. The history of the case dates back to 2001 and the Firm believes the California Supreme Court came to the correct legal decision, justifying the efforts and actions taken by the officers. Simply put, this decision stands for the proposition that the officers’ conduct was reasonable and legal.
Roger A. Colvin heads AGC’s Litigation Department and brings over thirty years of litigation experience in the fields of police misconduct and civil rights proceedings. For more information regarding AGC’s Litigation Department, please contact Roger A. Colvin at rcolvin@agclawfirm.com or (562) 699-5500.
[1] Hernandez et al. v. City of Pomona et al. (Cal. Supreme Court, Case No. S149499).
