California Verdicts

Plaintiff(s):

R. R. (Male), 

Teresa Ramirez (Female), 

Guillermo Ramirez (Male), 

Estate of Robert Ramirez (Male, 26 Years)

Plaintiff Attorney(s):

Dale K. Galipo;
Law Offices of Dale K. Galipo;
Woodland Hills,
CA,
for
R. R., Teresa Ramirez, Guillermo Ramirez, Estate of Robert Ramirez ■ Eric Valenzuela;
Law Offices of Dale K. Galipo;
Woodland Hills,
CA,
for
R. R., Teresa Ramirez, Guillermo Ramirez, Estate of Robert Ramirez

Plaintiff Expert(s):

Roger Clark; P.E.; Use of Force; Santee,
CA called by:
Dale K. Galipo, Eric Valenzuela

Defendant(s):

Aaron Zavala, 

Matthew Ross, 

Jeri Williams, 

Kyle Brantner, 

City of Oxnard, 

Steven Ramirez, 

Pedro Rodriguez, 

Roslynn Wilfert, 

Michael Bocanegra, 

Oxnard Police Department

Defense Attorney(s):

Dirk M. DeGenna;
Wisotsky, Procter & Shyer;
Oxnard,
CA,
for
Aaron Zavala, Matthew Ross, Kyle Brantner, City of Oxnard, Steven Ramirez, Pedro Rodriguez, Roslynn Wilfert, Michael Bocanegra ■ James N. Procter, II;
Wisotsky, Procter & Shyer;
Oxnard,
CA,
for
Aaron Zavala, Matthew Ross, Kyle Brantner, City of Oxnard, Steven Ramirez, Pedro Rodriguez, Roslynn Wilfert, Michael Bocanegra ■ None reported;

for
Jeri Williams, Oxnard Police Department

Defendant Expert(s):

Tom Neuman;
Emergency Medicine;
San Diego,
CA called by:
Dirk M. DeGenna, James N. Procter, II ■ Binh Ly;
Emergency Medicine;
La Jolla,
CA called by:
Dirk M. DeGenna, James N. Procter, II ■ Frank Sheridan;
Forensic Pathology;
San Bernardino,
CA called by:
Dirk M. DeGenna, James N. Procter, II ■ Curtis Cope;
Use of Force;
Huntington Beach,
CA called by:
Dirk M. DeGenna, James N. Procter, II

At around 9:45 p.m. on June 23, 2012, plaintiffs’ decedent Robert Ramirez, 26, drove to a female friend’s house in the 1100 block of South L Street in Oxnard. Ramirez had previously swallowed an "eight ball" of methamphetamine, or about 3.5 grams of methamphetamine, out of fear that he would be stopped by police and found with the meth before arriving at the house. As a result, his friend noticed that Ramirez was acting strangely and thought about taking him to the emergency room or calling 911 for a medical emergency. Thus, at around 10:40 p.m., Ramirez’s friend called 911 for an ambulance and medical assistance for Ramirez. At least seven officers responded to the scene and at least one officer had a Taser pointed at Ramirez throughout the incident, but the Taser was never used. At some point Ramirez stood up from his seated position and was immediately, forcefully taken down to the concrete by the officers. As a result, after a struggle, Ramirez was found to have numerous abrasions to his head and face, and several contusions to his back area. He was also found to be not breathing and was declared dead a short time later. The medical examiner for the county of Ventura determined that Ramirez’s death was a homicide caused by restraint asphyxia. The medical examiner also found that the drugs in Ramirez’s system were a contributing factor to the cause of death, but that the actual cause of death was due to the restraint used by the officers. The decedent’s parents, Guillermo Ramirez and Teresa Ramirez, and son, who was born after the decedent’s death, sued the seven responding police officers, Steven Ramirez, Michael Bocanegra, Roslynn Wilfert, Pedro Rodriguez, Aaron Zavala, Kyle Brantner and Matthew Ross; the officers’ supervisor, Chief Jeri Williams; and the officers’ employers, the Oxnard Police Department and the city of Oxnard. The decedent’s family alleged that the defendants violated the decedent’s civil rights. They also alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted battery and negligence, causing the decedent’s wrongful death. In addition, the decedent’s parents alleged that the defendants violated their right to a familial relationship with their son, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Jeri Williams and the police department were ultimately dismissed on summary judgment. Thus, the matter continued against the seven responding officers and the city. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that the decedent initially complied with the officers commands to sit down near a front porch or an abandoned house, but that when the decedent stood up, all seven officers forcefully took him down, causing the decedent to land face-down on the ground. Counsel also contended that while the decedent was in the prone position on the ground, all of the officers remained on top of the decedent and applied pressure to the decedent’s head, neck, back, buttock and legs. Several of the officers involved were carrying personal audio recording devices, which captured the decedent stating multiple times that he could not breathe. The audio recordings also captured the officers stating that the decedent was no longer breathing. However, plaintiffs’ counsel contended that despite both the decedent and the involved officers stating the decedent was having difficulty breathing, the officers did not dismount from on top of the decedent, who continued to lay face down on the ground, until the decedent was handcuffed and a hobble device was put around his legs. Counsel noted that on the audio recordings, the decedent can be heard screaming for his life and then he go completely silent. Thus, plaintiffs’ counsel established that the involved officers were on top of the decedent for approximately four minutes while he lay face down on the ground and that the decedent ultimately lost consciousness and stop breathing while the officers were on top of him. Counsel also noted that one of the officers stated that by the time they finally got off of the decedent, the decedent had become blue and grey in the face, was unconscious, and was not responsive. Defense counsel contended that when asked by a police dispatcher whether or not police should be sent to respond, the decedent’s friend said "yes." Counsel also contended that once police arrived, the decedent failed to comply with every other instruction given by the officers, including more than 20 requests for the decedent to roll over onto his stomach so that he could be placed into handcuffs for the safety of the officers and emergency medical personnel who were waiting for the decedent to be secured before they could treat him. One officer admitted to having a Taser pointed at the decedent briefly, but claimed that it was never deployed. Defense counsel further contended that after several minutes of attempting to get the decedent to roll onto his stomach, the decedent became more and more agitated. Counsel asserted that as a result, the officers, believing the decedent was in need of medical attention because he was overdosing, devised a plan to physically restrain the decedent and place him into handcuffs so that emergency medical services could be brought onto the scene. However, defense counsel contended that as an officer attempted to place the decedent’s left hand behind his back to apply a handcuff, the decedent stood up from his seated position and said, "I’m going to f— you guys up," and pulled away from the grasp of the officer attempting to apply handcuffs. Thus, after a brief struggle with officers, the decedent was forcefully taken down to the concrete by several of the officers, who then struggled with the decedent to place him into handcuffs once on the ground. Defense counsel argued that it took the officers approximately 96 seconds to place the decedent into handcuffs, but that the decedent continued to resist by kicking his legs and bucking his body, even after the handcuffs were applied. As a result, the officers called for a body wrap, but that the decedent was noted to be not breathing while they were waiting for the body wrap to be retrieved from a police vehicle and unpacked. Emergency medical services were then called in immediately. Thus, defense counsel argued that the officers never struck the decedent, that no Tasers were used, and that the county’s coroners found no evidence of the police hitting or choking the decedent. It was established that during the 96 seconds it took to apply the handcuffs, there was an officer on each of the decedent’s legs, an officer on his back, and another officer on his right shoulder while the decedent lay face down on the ground. Once the decedent was handcuffed, only one officer continued to apply pressure to the decedent’s right shoulder in order to hold the decedent down while some of the other officers applied a hobble to the decedent’s legs, with no other pressure being applied to the torso. After the hobble was applied, the decedent lost consciousness and stop breathing while one officer held the shoulder down. One of the officers claimed that the decedent only appeared to be blue and grey in the face, and was found to be unconscious and not responsive, after the decedent was turned over. The officers claimed that Ramirez was combative the entire time until only shortly before they noticed that he had stopped breathing. They also claimed that as soon as they noticed the decedent had stopped breathing, emergency medical personnel were called in. The Ventura County medical examiner found no evidence of the police hitting or choking the decedent, and found the abrasions on his face to be consistent with scrapping his face on the driveway. Thus, defense counsel argued that the decedent died from the massive amount of drugs he ingested, and counsel called three medical experts to testify about how the cause of death was due the drugs ingested by the decedent. Defense counsel also noted that an investigation by the Ventura County District Attorney’s office found the officers to be fully justified in the force used to restrain the decedent, who was acting erratically after ingesting drugs. Doubting the accuracy of the medical examiner’s conclusions, the District Attorney’s Office hired a medical examiner to conduct an independent evaluation, but the independent medical examiner also concluded that the decedent died not as a result of restraint asphyxia, but due to methamphetamine toxicity with all of the features of "Excited Delirium Syndrome," a widely recognized syndrome consisting of signs of extreme agitation and combativeness, elevated body temperature with profuse sweating and other sympathomimetic effects, such as an elevated heart rate and blood pressure. In addition, police audio recordings showed that the officers spoke calmly and asked the decedent to lie on his stomach so that medical workers could help him. In response, plaintiffs’ counsel argued that the audio recordings also showed that the decedent stated he could not breathe multiple times and that the officers, themselves, were yelling out loud that the decedent was no longer breathing. Plaintiffs’ counsel also noted that an autopsy report from Ventura County found that the decedent had died from active prone restraint and that the official cause of death was homicide by restraint asphyxia.

Robert Ramirez sustained numerous abrasions to his head and face, and several contusions to his back area. By the time the ambulance reached him, he was not breathing and was unresponsive. Ramirez was then taken to St. John’s Regional Medical Center, in Oxnard, where he was declared dead upon arrival. The decedent was 26 years old and he is survived by his parents and a son, who was born after the decedent’s death. The decedent’s family sought recovery of survival damages for the pain and suffering suffered by the decedent prior to death. They family also sought recovery of wrongful death damages.

The jury found that one officer used unreasonable and excessive force, but that none of the officers were deliberately indifferent to the decedent’s medical needs. However, it also found that all seven officers were negligent and acted deliberately indifferent to Guillermo and Teresa Ramirez’s right to a familial relationship with their son, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, the jury determined that the decedent’s family’s damages totaled $2,925,000.

R. R.: $1,600,000 Wrongful Death: wrongful death damages; Estate of Robert Ramirez: $75,000 Wrongful Death: Survival; Guillermo Ramirez: $625,000 Wrongful Death: wrongful death damages; Teresa Ramirez: $625,000 Wrongful Death: wrongful death damages

Judge:

Michael W. Fitzgerald

Trial Length:

8
 days

Trial Deliberations:

3
 days

This report is based on information that was provided by plaintiffs’ and defense counsel.