the issue of the defective government tort claims that were found by the district court and then the court's granting of the summary judgment motion i'd like to start with the government tort claim there are interrelated the motion for judgment on the pleadings took place after the court granted the motion to dismiss and kind of piggyback off the same logical though there was a slight difference there with the county so i'd like to refer your honour's to the record here to actually look at what this government tort claim looked like you know i filled out a lot of government tort claims in my life and my career you know i think the irony here is that this one was an exceptionally detailed one that admittedly did use some confusing sakamoto by and through his surviving errors and each one of those surviving errors is capitalized and listed in the caption page and then it says victim and it says victim the singular victim singular although when we go to the next page plaintiff's plural with each individual claimant underlined and the reason your honor why you use that is in these government tort claims there's generally one line for who the victim is and so the idea here was he was the victim of the death but it was brought by the claimants and using the exact language that's used in california's wrongful deaths that although in in the claim you put gerald not brings up the claim says brains which suggests that the subject of the signs is singular as opposed to the way you quoted it in your brief which suggests that the subject is plural well your honor turning to the next page which is four  change and reform las the procedures and protocols and ensure the enforcement again using the statute of c c p three hundred and seventy seven point six the which says a cause of action for the death of a person you know can be brought by any of the following individuals and subsection a is surviving heirs and so i was literally mirroring the language of the statute but i certainly understand the confusion but i hope that confusion could be resolved in the subsequent eight pages where the damages tha specifically discussed are wrongful death types of damages and not survival damages in the way we know that your honor is page four hundred and thirty nine where it says the injuries the injuries is ongoing in through the present and then the damages listed loss of consortium for the for the wife would have a loss of consortium claim emotional injuries conscious disregard for deceit and safety and yeah i mean repeatedly throughout its use plaintiffs i can say that with respect to the county in just shifting gears for a nd you know the county understood from the fact that their rejection letters said to see didn't and they've provided separate rejection letters for the individual clients that i represented with different claim numbers we requested the district court take judicial notice of the fact that the county created different file numbers for jane  for the daughter and your honor that is an i thought we had other california cases said though that it's not really the purpose of the statute isn't so much to  standard has substantial compliance i mean going to the cases that we cite you know which is the stock it case and the stock it case says you need not contain the specific specificity in detail and appear in the pleading but fairly to describe what the entity has done but it's not to be applied to snare the unwary or its purpose has been satisfied i mean i agree that by and through could have some level of confusion that was created the county was not confused because they responded with individual rejection letters for remind me just i thought it wasn't for the full set of the plaintiffs that you were but it was one plaintiff in there that was missing but if we were turn to page three hundred and eighty two of the record there you have claim presented date your client doesn't say the estate it doesn't say survivorship action this is your client is brink that's what i intended by that by and through and again hit myself on the head a little bit that it was not as clear as it should have been but they understood it well did to say i understood maybe that she  was purporting to be one of the state's representatives not to i'm not asserting a claim in her own right well then it would have said your client i mean respectfully i think you would say your client would be the estate so and so i mean in the cases that were cited i think it's the nelson case the issue was is that they didn't say the estate and then try to bring the estate later on and come up with this other entity my intention here was listing the names of individual claimants who had the right under c c p thirty seven  logo the county didn't file the motion to dismiss at st i mean they smartly saw with the court did with the states and then filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings i would have done the same thing if i were them but the point being if you read through the eight pages of the damages i i think you're right that that could only be claimed by a wrongful death action as opposed to our survival action but i thought loss of consortium was limited to the spouse not not the children act and look i can assure you that every government tort nine hundred and ten claim filed after you know this one will not have the wife linked with the children but specifically because there were three different claimants namely a forgive me f interrupting was there a consortium claim in your complaint against the canny in the actual lawsuit that was filed part of the answer is yes that was one of the claims that were and then in the context of what was asserted in the but i guess my question is did you assert innate in the case in your complaint against the county a state law loss of consortium kind in the in the loss of comfort in society just being a way to driver i didn't see it in the complaint but alright i'll take another look at it my question was it was maybe a different one than you understood i guess i could see a line on  line on nelson how if you've at least mentioned a category of damages that's only consistent with someone bringing a claim in their own right that that's enough perhaps to put on notice that even though you may not fully phrase th who the climate was all that that they should have realized that actually there are two distinct claims but that wouldn't seem to me to help children here like us that's what i was trying to get out that last consortiums is uniquely claimed by the spouse and it's not a category of damages that uniquely applies to children my response to that would be what would be only specific to the children are damages that were going through the present because the survivorship would stop the date of death and so that's why you know i  the broader issue here of the summary judgment there's really one key thing where i think the court gets it overall wrong and this is so the court's m s j order starts on exhibit the excerpts page ten but if you turn to neuro assessment problem did not trigger a further evaluation and that some necessary paperwork necessary paperwork was not completed does not contradict the evidence in the record that deceit and appeared completely able to care for himself and so there the court is making a judgment that i think there is a trial of the whole issue of a material tribal issue  fact on here is what we know we know that before he arrived at the inmate reception center i'm sorry if you talk about your fifteen i thought we were moving to the summary judgment order this is not that well i apologize i think we're moving to the summary judgment order and i have it on my and your honor and dr ninety two i have are that you are numbers but ok so i'm sorry i just i apologise if you know i was trying to find what you talked about just repeat what you were just trying to say so the paragraph that i think sums up the whole argument with the summary judgment reads this way it says likewise the fact that the ensuring neuro assessment problem did not trigger further evaluation and that some necessary paperwork was not completed does not contradict the evidence in the record that deceit and appeared completely able to care for himself and then you're going to talk about the fact i can talk about the facts that were in the record i want you to have and do here that the facts and the record here are the two c h p officers who saw him once said it looked like he had he was my grandfather who had all timers and we were talking about counties liability correct and i'm just saying today he never learn that's part of the problem they never learned the information from the c h p folks right and what the court seems to blanket them here with though is the fact that the necessary paperwork for conducting that evaluation was never done somehow immunizes them when that evaluation would have led to those very specific findings of his condition when we did the deposition it was junk i mean junk specifically said that if one of these boxes were checked it was a mandatory obligation that another evaluation was done and that evaluation was not done and this specific case further where you check that box and i'm just i'm sort of lost because i don't understand how you get what is it that you think put the county not the state the county on notice that he had issues that needed further investigation so very specifically if you go to the form the assessment form that the inmates fill out you know there and that determines and and that's what i'm saying you have fault on the state's part that's separate from the county and i'm here if you're talking about the county i think you need to just forget about whatever the c h p did wrong right right ok so we're going saying what did the what do you think gave the county independent notice that there were issues with question five does the arrestee appear to be under the influence of alcohol and or drugs if the jailer began intoxication observation sheet if the rest of the appears to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs the observation she shall be completed and that is checked yes did her observation she wrote neurological problem she says no but she says it was a mistake yeah she says it was a mistake and so we have to believe that she's accurate that it was a mistake that when she wrote neurological problem that that was actually a mistake and she meant to write no neurological problem for someone who we know has a neurological problem so we would have to be they don't know that that's the problem the county doesn't know that totally accurate but what we do know is they check the box that based on had they check that box based on the deposition of john neurological problem would mean mandatory clinic you would have to translate them down so even if i were to grant you that looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to not non moving party we shouldn't credit the deposition testimony and we should credit the form how does that yet to one thousand nine hundred and eighty three violation how does that get to a practice or a policy of  basically deliberate indifference and actual deliberate indifference because releasing someone when there is a mandatory obligation to refer them to the clinic not making that mandatory referral would be just like the cases we cite where the police take custody of someone and put him out in the freezing cold or they take the female and put her no i think you bennett's question is what's the policy that you say not just there may have been mistakes made here there may be contradictions so that's not enough to get you under menow nine hundred and eighty three dollars claim you have to show that there is a practice or policy and where do you show that and i think there's two issues there on the one hand there's the state created danger issue and the special relationship issue and then there is separately a mono issue on the mono issue the policy is there policy i mean we know what the policy was and we know the policy was in filed by looking at the deposition of joe junk didn't even know this policy existed when confronted with the policy but john also said that there was a mandatory obligation to refer the individual to the clinic if neuro problem existed i get that she said it was a mistake but it but again even if we take the facts in the light most favorable to you which is she she saw a neurological problem and mistakenly didn't refer  case where this involves someone in custody who was then released into a dangerous situation and then based on the other dangerous conditions they created danger cases we cited by putting a mentally ill bipolar person with no money into the street that was that created the omission necessary for the due process clause analysis under section one thousand nine hundred and three claim why don't we ask you to pause you've run gone way over time but we'll give you a couple minutes for a bottle  let's hear from counsel for the defendants and i understand you are going to split your time who is going  of the state of california by and through the california highway patrol as counsel said let's look at i grew up in new york but when we say let's look at the videotape but let's look at the record the claim itself we've seen it i mean so i guess i have one question for you maybe i can just cut to the chase at least in my own mind that the loss of the specification of loss of consortium damages it seems to me would be enough obiter dicta nelson but there is a suggestion there that it least if the person had alleged category of damages that exclusive to a particular type of claim that maybe they haven't you know it was crossed all the t s and dot all the dotted all the our eyes and that's enough to put you on notice that they're not just seeking to recover on behalf of the loss of consortium i've been an attorney for about twenty eight years now and loss of consortium is one of the most misunderstood claim if i may in california everybody thinks that they can assert one as long as ten not allowed to perform sexual relations with their partner the believe they have a loss of consortium claim so here in the claim you have all of the damages all of them except for one concern yes state and then you've got this again this is not a model of of clarity and we're trying to make sense of something that if we look at the whole picture a lot of thing does not make sense i don't have the answer as to why it did not ring a bell but if you look at the whole claim it should not have rung the bell because it's clear from the whole claim that  claimant is mr sakamoto whether or not he believed he was entitled you're saying the burden wasn't on you the burden was on them to make this clear they made it hopelessly at best hopelessly unclear although in your view they made it much more clear that it was only a claim for the state and not otherwise and that even if they threw in one or two words or three words here or there that would be consistent with an individual claim that was not quote substantial compliance under the law thank you i think form not substance and god knows the name of the claimant is substantiative if you look at the requirement of the torah claims that number one name of the claimant number two where did this happen number three you know what are your damages we don't have that here and so oh and you are not with respect to the loss of course i'm sure on the claim that is a separate claim that was not asserted in the complaint against either the state or the county and so i don't think that matters for purposes of the argument we're entertaining here though th question is whether you did this claim gave you enough notice that they were not at least as to mrs psychomotor she was not just asserting a claim on behalf of the estate in the survivor action but rather was also asserting damages on her own behalf in a wrongful death action you see that why doesn't that say oh well whatever misconception we might have been under given like who the hell would specify claim and the references the plaintiffs boy does that mean they are whatever and i'm certain you had by the time you get to the damages why doesn't we're seeking loss of consortium damages on about at least one of these people why doesn't that tell you oh it's not just to survive fraction because we know those damages cannot be recovered in a survivor action all right again you don't look at those three words in a vacuum you look at the end tally of the documents now these documents are it mr myself admitted to having great you know a ton of them but most of the time you know it's people sometimes lay people who write these claims so it's normal that there are mistakes made in the articulation of what the damage is or do claims on everything so if you just see you know loss of consortium it's not going to jump back at you and say hey you know what let's forget about everything that i've read in these eight pages i think they're trying to assert a wrongful death claim look at the whole the words of wrongful death is not mentioned once and the entire claim and so what does standard what the plenty appellant wants this standard to be is you know let's forget about the written words let's forget about the four corner of  the document but let's instead look behind the words and just stated in the pension i'm just looking at what the court in olson says it seems to me that's one of the most on point cases we have and what the court there seem to find significant was i think there maybe it was the reverse of what we have here i can't remember exactly but the court said and part of the reason why i said we're not going to allow this new sort of new claim to be brought in is because the the damages described in the claim were for the loss of a son with no mention of any damages incurred by doing before his death and i guess i read that language is suggesting that if notwithstanding all the other problems with the claim there they had specified damages that were uniquely available in the action that they wanted to bring that the result might have been different and i promise this will be my last point and but i want to mention something that's important here  losses comma emotional and mental injuries now if the attorney had been you know an artful advocate he would have said hey you know what do you cannot make losses and emotional and mental injuries could also been asserted on behalf of the estate and therefore i gave notice to the state by mentioning the stupid remedies that we were also a deistic but that's not what the court did the court focused on loss of the son because doc was the main damage the other stuff flowed from the loss you know or at least was relevant to the loss of their son and same here you've got six different damages five of them only pertain to d s state and you've got down to one last in the middle that please the court my name is analisa and i represent the county of los angeles in this matter as we discussed there are two issues relating to the county before the court one is whether through their policies customs and practices they violated as was pointed out by the appellants the letters were addressed to the client which whether they're in a representative capacity or individual they are still clients so those letters were not sen claimants which would be a different identifying them that there were separate letters does not suggest that they that they conceded that each of them were area what w and that she did not pass that on i think she testified she did not or should not testified she said in this interview she didn't pass that on and that there was no policy i think that you've pointed to requiring has everything he said that she doesn't believe it does but she was not able to produce any evidence to demonstrate that there was an additional phone call no but why i wouldn't i don't believe that's enough why isn't that enough on summary judgment i mean again that doesn't establish what else was in there but if it's admissible we have ms rodel saying to the private investigator she said he's not drunk she said he has alzheimer's or dementia and i was like oh records that show that there are no additional phone calls that were made there's nothing to dispute that that is a valid recording of what happened about the recording of that conversation well i mean if ms rodel had said this in her if five people say the light is green one person says it right it's red but there's video footage showing that it's going in then we can then the the court shouldn't listen to the one person who says that it i agree in in that instance but here we have somebody who is a participant in the conversation and we have the other person who's a participant who says i can't tell you exactly what else was said but i don't think this was everything i mean this is summary judgment i mean i i think that would be way different demonstrate that the trend that the audio file that was submitted not just the transcripts are inaccurate or that they're missing something again we have all the phone records if there was another phone call or if the phone call was a longer than the recording which it's not we have th time stamp so we know exactly how long the call took and that aligns with the audio recording so there just isn't any competent evidence at sally and what is just clear evidence as opposed to somebody that was said or i remember that was said but my question is when that testimony was given her adele listen to the tape recordings or not or don't we know the answer is both for the private investigator i'm not sure i would i wasn't part of that and i don't believe that it's in the transcript whether he showed it or played it for her in the deposition we did play it for her and while she initially  had some similar confuse him or she said i thought this was i thought once you listen to it she says you're right that is what happened and when i put on hold it was to check a citation not to ask about also miers which by the way in her position she mentions that too and she initially got confused and thought maybe she had brought it up to the supervisor well i mean but again in the interview she specifically said referring to ms psaki murder she said that he wasn't drunk that he had alzheimer's is the least the quote from a trans to the district court i can go back and check our records and i can submit a supplemental brief if you would like or i'd probably find it right now but i don't want to take up some time that we don't need a supplement over we can figure so i'm not sure how the time is working now i think i might hear a minute what happened was i think your your co counsel took up more time than maybe was a lot of temp so i'm happy to give you a couple of minutes to ok i should say what you wanted to say i would just like to just briefly address some of the other motion for summary judgment issues that were brought up by the of helen's so the st is the arrestee medical form a lot of effort was spent on not that the jailer should have done this and if the jail had filled out this observation sheet it would have triggered a nd evaluation at the i o c clinic so this argument fails on multiple levels st he mr sakamoto because he was over the age of fifty five automatically received enhanced screening that's why he was sent to the i r c clinic that's why he received a nd evaluation by nurse lindo so whatever would have happened it happened anyways nd both nurse john and visually and both found that he did not appear intoxicated which is completely in line with the video which shows that he is steady on his feet or less is like what peter ten hours after he was arrested no your honor he was arrested around three thirty in the supports that he didn't look intoxicated and both nurses did a visual assessment check for tremors check for regular blood shot eyes any different and he's lying and found that none of that was present so it's that's a red herring there's nothing that would suggest  that had the jailer filled out this form something different would have happened and as explained in the declaration of deputy for ollie and i are see they don't follow that because they have nurses on staff two hundred and forty seven a nurse checks for intoxication rather than a jailer it just makes more sense as to the neurological problem while miss while it wasn't specified exactly what the condition was that we were supposed to looking from the papers it would be bipolar disorder mr sakamoto told officer sanchez of c h p that he had bipolar although that was not communicated to the department and what they seem to be is saying is that if he had reported that he had bipolar this would have changed the outcome somehow however the fact that someone has bipolar does not render them incapable of caring for themselves and therefore doesn't make an unreasonable dangerous situation by releasing them we have video footage from seven twenty five am to seven forty seven pm sewing mr sakamoto was perfectly ordinary as the court as a district court categorized it he helps himself to food he navigates a confusing area with no trouble he follows directions there's nothing to suggest that even if he was bipolar he was going through some sort of manic episode or something else that would render him helpless once he got out more over nurse linda did a full neuro susman which is fully documented in there it says that he reported having known neurological symptoms at that time which again would mean there's nothing to keep him there just because he happens of this sort of that many people walking around have  i think those were the main points that he made but i would just like to make one or two little ones before i let you guys one before i go is that the facts of this case aren't really in dispute because we have video footage showing him at every step of the way because we have medical records that we know cannot be altered because we have audio of all the phone calls that mrs sakamoto made there's just no question in the record that there was nothing to put the county on notice that that mr sakamoto was suffering from any ailment that would mr adidas stated that there was no reference in the nine hundred and ten claim to a wrongful death or accusing them of the death and i would just refer the court to the section about the california highway patrol which specifically says the california highway patrol and name some other entities are partially responsible for the death of gerald nd moto and then the other injuries emotional injuries can't be assert survivorship action they don't have emotional distress survivorship claim so there was a reference that there were all these categories of damages and only loss of consortium in fact all of the categories of damages are in a state related damages the survivorship claim would have been perhaps for burial expenses and funeral expenses and other loss of out of pocket expenses that predate the death none of those are actually listed that the damages that are listed are actually all the types of damages you would list in a wrongful death and there's no reference to the estate actually anywhere so it's a reverse of nelson where where the issue of the estate was referenced but the other claims were records regarding the video footage which i think is a red herring i'm not sure if someone who has bipolar supposed to act crazy you know on a video for it to prove that they have the disorder the issue was was there reporting or not a reporting of it there was how do you respond to counsel's assertion that even if that box had been checked nothing would have been done differently because he got to the two evaluations well as i understood it if you had the neurological problem and that was challenged talking about jail or form that you stressed correct but that would have been in my view you know have triggered not the lindo you know not the lindo but a separate hold that would have been required and the jailer observation would have been filled out and you were told that these medical records are unalterable and we should view the sanctity of these records as the be all end all but they're not filled out