Plaintiff shot by LAPD rubber bullet. $1.5M. Los Angeles County.

Summary

Plaintiff is shot outside Staples Center as crowd celebrates a big win.

The Case

Case Name: Kimberly Marroquin v. Unidentified LAPD Officer, et al.
Court and Case Number: U.S. District Court for Central District Cal. 2:21-cv-07607-RGK-JEM
Date of Verdict or Judgment: Friday, October 14, 2022
Date Action was Filed: Thursday, September 23, 2021
Type of Action: Civil Rights, Excessive Force, Police Shooting
Judge or Arbitrator(s): Hon. R. Gary Klausner
Plaintiffs:
Kimberly Marroquin
Defendants:
Officer Dimaggio Rico
City of Los Angeles
Type of Result: Jury Verdict

The Result

Gross Verdict or Award: $1,500,001
Award as to each Defendant:
$1 against Officer Dimaggio Rico; $1,500,000 against City of Los Angeles
Contributory/Comparative Negligence: None.
Economic Damages:
None claimed.
Non-Economic Damages:
$1,500,001
Trial or Arbitration Time: 3 days
Jury Deliberation Time: 5 hours
Jury Polls: Unanimous verdict, 8 jurors.

The Attorneys

Attorney for the Plaintiff:
Conlogue Law, LLP by Kevin S. Conlogue, Beverly Hills.
Attorney for the Defendant:
Stone Busailah LLP by Muna Busailah and Michael Williamson, Pasadena.

The Experts

Plaintiff’s Medical Expert(s):
Marissa Chang, M.D., neurology.
Taylor Kuhn, Ph.D., neuropsychology.
Defendant's Medical Expert(s):
None.
Plaintiff's Technical Expert(s):
Roger Clark, police practices.
Defendant's Technical Expert(s):
None.

Facts and Background

Facts and Background:
On October 11, 2020, plaintiff went to the Staples Center in downtown Los Angeles to celebrate the Lakers' winning the NBA Finals in the bubble. She got there early at around 8:30 p.m. Later in the evening, buses were set on fire and looting occured. The images of the fires and looting were the only images shown in the media.
Plaintiff was there early-on in the evening, at 12th and Figueroa, celebrating the win with the crowd. Around 9:00 p.m., the LAPD showed up with their presence in the crowd, which quickly made the crowd turn very tense. Plaintiff decided to leave. As she was walking north on Figueroa at 9:15, she was shot in the head and while on the ground after being shot, she saw a blue rubber bullet on the ground (a 40mm round which she did not know was a 40mm round). As a result of the impact to her head, she was diagnosed with a concussion at urgent care about 12 hours later, the following morning. A few days later, she had a head CT scan that was negative.
Plaintiff did not see the shooter, but was adamant that the bullet came from a skirmish line on Figueroa facing southbound. Plaintiff sent a CPRA for all body-worn camera (BWC) footage of the incident at that location and later filed a writ in state court to enforce the CPRA request because the LAPD would not produce any BWC. The police claimed in state court to a judge that there was no BWC showing a 40mm being shot at or around that location and at/around that time from a skirmish line facing southbound.
Plaintiff then filed a lawsuit in federal court. In federal court discovery there were documents and a BWC of a 40mm shot from a skirmish line facing southbound, and only one officer shot one 40mm round at that location – Officer Dimaggio Rico. Plaintiff then amended the complaint to add Officer Rico as a defendant.
Plaintiff's Contentions:
Plaintiff claimed the officer is shooting in retaliation at a man who just threw a bottle, which is against policy.
Defendant's Contentions:
Defense claimed that the officer was shooting at a man throwing a bottle; also, that plaintiff's injury was due to being stampeded by a crowd, not a 40mm rubber bullet shot to the head.

Injuries and Other Damages

Physical Injuries claimed by Plaintiff:
Mild traumatic brain injury.

Special Damages

Special Damages Claimed - Past Medical: N/A
Special Damages Claimed - Future Medical: N/A
Special Damages Claimed - Past Lost Earnings: N/A
Special Damages Claimed - Future Lost Earnings: N/A

Demands and Offers

Defendant Final Offer before Trial: $15,000

Print this Verdict

Disclaimer

This is not an official court document. While the publisher believes the information to be accurate, the publisher does not guarantee it and the reader is advised not to rely upon it without consulting the official court documents or the attorneys of record in this matter who are listed above.