Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-02337/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-02337-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 04cv2337

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTONIO FLORES; JUANA FLORES;

GIOVANNI FLORES, a minor, by and

through his Guardian Ad Litem; and

ABIGAIL FLORES, a minor, by and through

her Guardian Ad Litem,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 04cv2337-IEG(NLS)

Order Directing Clerk to Enter

Judgment in Favor of Plaintiff Antonio

Flores; Directing Clerk to Enter

Judgment in Favor of Defendant on

vs. Claims by Remaining Plaintiffs

STEVEN SHEPHARD; CITY OF

NATIONAL CITY, a municipality,

Defendants.

Following a jury trial on the Plaintiffs’ claims in this case, on October 2, 2008, the jury

returned a special verdict. The jury found in favor of Defendant Steve Shephard on the claims

asserted by Plaintiffs Juana Flores, Giovanni Flores, or Abigail Flores. However, the jury found

that Defendant Steve Shephard unreasonably detained Plaintiff Antonio Flores in violation of his

constitutional right. The jury found that the unreasonable detention was not a substantial factor in

causing harm to Plaintiff Antonio Flores, and therefore awarded no damages.

The Court instructed counsel for Defendant to submit a proposed form of judgment to be

entered by the Court based upon the jury’s verdict. Counsel for Defendant submitted the proposed

///

///

Case 3:04-cv-02337-IEG-NLS Document 222 Filed 11/21/08 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 04cv2337

 form of judgment, asking the Court to order enter judgment as follows:

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that plaintiffs shall take

nothing, and that defendants City of National City, and Steve Mike Shephard,

shall recover from plaintiffs defendants’ costs of this action.

Plaintiffs’ counsel objected to this proposed form of judgment, arguing it failed to provide for an

award of nominal damages in favor of Plaintiff Antonio Flores based upon the jury’s finding that

Officer Shephard unreasonably detained Flores in violation of his Constitutional right. In order to

address this issue prior to the entry of judgment, the Court directed the parties to submit post-trial

briefs. The parties have now filed those briefs.

A hearing was held before Chief Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on November 21, 2008. Based

upon all of the arguments presented by the parties, the Court directs the Clerk to enter judgment in

favor of Plaintiff Antonio Flores, and to enter judgment in favor of Defendant on the claims raised

by the remaining Plaintiffs.

Background

Plaintiffs at trial presented evidence in support of their claim that Defendant Steven

Shephard of the National City Police Department unreasonably detained them in violation of their

Constitutional right. The Court instructed the jury regarding the elements of Plaintiffs’ claim under

42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the standard to be applied to determine if Steven Shephard unreasonably

detained any of the Plaintiffs in violation of their Constitutional right. [Jury Instructions, Doc. No.

213, Instruction Nos. 10, 12, and 12A.] The Court also instructed the jury regarding the measure

of damages. [Id., Instruction Nos. 14 and 15.] Finally, the Court instructed the jury regarding

nominal damages as follows:

The law which applies to this case authorizes an award of nominal damages. If you

find for the plaintiff but you find that the plaintiff has failed to prove damages as

defined in these instructions, you must award nominal damages. Nominal damages

may not exceed one dollar.

[Id., Instruction No. 16.] 

The Court provided the jury with a special verdict form. As to Plaintiff Antonio Flores, the

verdict form asked the jury to determine the following three questions:

///

///

Case 3:04-cv-02337-IEG-NLS Document 222 Filed 11/21/08 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 - 04cv2337

1. Did Steve Mike Shephard unreasonably detain plaintiff Antonio Flores in violation

of his Constitutional right?

If your answer to question 1 is yes, then answer question 2. If you answered no,

answer no further questions in this section . . . .

2. Was Steve Mike Shephard’s unreasonable detention a substantial factor in causing

harm to Antonio Flores?

If your answer to question 2 is yes, then answer question 3. If you answered no,

answer no further questions in this section . . . .

3. What are Antonio Flores’ reasonable damages?

[Jury Verdict, Doc. No. 214.] 

The jury responded to the first question in the affirmative, finding that Steve Mike

Shephard did unreasonably detain plaintiff Antonio Flores in violation of his Constitutional right.

The jury found, however, that the detention was not a substantial factor in causing harm to

Antonio Flores. Although the verdict form instructed the jury that if they answered no to question

2 they should answer no further questions, the jury nonetheless answered question 3, stating

Antonio Flores’ reasonable damages were zero. [Jury Verdict, Doc. No. 214.]

Based upon the jury’s responses to the special verdict form, Defendants ask the Court to

enter judgment in their favor and against Plaintiffs on all claims. Plaintiff Antonio Flores, by

contrast, argues the Court is required by controlling law to enter judgment in his favor for nominal

damages based upon the jury’s finding that Steve Shepard violated his Constitutional right.

Discussion

The Ninth Circuit has unequivocally held that where a plaintiff proves a violation of his

constitutional rights, he is entitled to an award of nominal damages as a matter of law. In Floyd v.

Laws, 929 F.2d 1390 (9th Cir. 1991), a mother and her minor children brought an action against

police under § 1983 alleging unlawful arrest, use of unreasonable force in making the arrest, and

interference with family relations. As in this case, the jury in Floyd returned a special verdict form

finding the defendants violated the mother’s constitutional rights. The jury further found the

mother suffered no actual damage as a result of the defendants’ actions. As in this case, 

notwithstanding instructions in the jury form to skip the next question regarding the amount of

damages, the jury in Floyd moved to the next question and awarded plaintiff $7,500 in damages.

Case 3:04-cv-02337-IEG-NLS Document 222 Filed 11/21/08 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 - 04cv2337

The trial court in Floyd declared the jury’s award of $7,500 in damages to be surplusage,

because the jury disregarded explicit instructions in the special verdict form not to answer the

question regarding actual damages if it found the plaintiff suffered no actual injury. Furthermore,

even though the jury found defendants’ had violated the mother’s rights, the trial court in Floyd

entered judgment for defendants.

The Ninth Circuit reversed. First, the appellate court addressed the role of the court when

faced with seemingly inconsistent answers to a special verdict form. Under such circumstances,

the Ninth Circuit noted 

A court has a duty under the seventh amendment to harmonize those answers, if

such be possible under a fair reading of them. . . . A court is also obligated to try to

reconcile the jury’s findings by exegesis, if necessary. Only in the case of a fatal

inconsistency may the court remand for a new trial.

929 F.2d at 1396 (citing Gallick v. Baltimore & O.R.R. Co., 372 U.S. 108, 110, 119-20). Because

the jury in Floyd found plaintiff did not suffer any actual injury, and because the special verdict

form instructed the jury not to consider the amount of damages to be awarded if it found no actual

injury, the Ninth Circuit found the trial court properly struck as surplusage the jury’s award of

$7,500 in damages. 

The Ninth Circuit then considered the trial court’s refusal to enter judgment in favor of

plaintiff for nominal damages. The Ninth Circuit found the trial court abused its discretion in

failing to award plaintiff $1.00 in nominal damages, and enter judgment in her favor.

We hold that neither the judge nor the jury has any discretion in this matter,

assuming that the jury has reasonably rendered its verdict for the plaintiff. If the

jury finds a constitutional violation, an award of nominal damages is mandatory,

not permissive. That a jury might choose to award zero actual damages is

irrelevant to the legal question of whether, on the basis of the jury’s verdict, the

plaintiff was entitled to judgment and nominal damages. Because Floyd secured a

favorable jury verdict on her section 1983 claim against the City of Sherwood, she

was legally entitled to judgment with a mandatory nominal damages award of $1.00

as a symbolic vindication of her constitutional right.

Floyd, 929 F.2d at 1402-03 (emphasis added).

Defendants attempt to distinguish Floyd by arguing that although the jury in Floyd

intended to award some damages, the jury in this case expressed its determination Plaintiff was

Case 3:04-cv-02337-IEG-NLS Document 222 Filed 11/21/08 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Defendants also argue Plaintiff should have raised the issue of nominal damages at trial

before the court discharged the jury. Defendants argue Plaintiff’s failure to raise the argument

earlier results in a waiver. Defendants’ waiver argument is not supported by the case law. See Los

Angeles Nut House v. Holiday Hardware Corp., 825 F.2d 1351, 1355 (9th Cir. 1987) (holding that

the failure to object to an inconsistency in a special verdict does not waive any rights).

2

At the hearing, Defendants argued Plaintiff Antonio Flores is not entitled to an award of

nominal damages because any such award would be offset against the settlement monies

previously paid to Plaintiffs by J.C. Penney. Defendants are entitled to offset any award in favor

of Plaintiffs, including any award of attorneys fees. Corder v. Brown, 25 F.3d 833, 840 (9th Cir.

1994). However, the Court is aware of no authority precluding it from entering judgment for the

nominal damages based upon the jury’s verdict. 

- 5 - 04cv2337

entitled to zero damages.1 However, the Ninth Circuit in Floyd expressly addressed this situation,

stating “[t]hat a jury might choose to award zero actual damages is irrelevant to the legal question

of whether, on the basis of the jury’s verdict, the plaintiff was entitled to judgment and nominal

damages.” 929 F.2d at 1402. Defendants argue the only “reasonable interpretation of the special

verdict in this case” is that the jury in fact did not believe Antonio Flores’ constitutional rights

were violated. Defendants do not ask the Court to reconcile the apparently inconsistent responses

– they instead ask the Court to completely throw out one of those answers. The Court finds no

basis upon which it should disregard the jury’s determination that Defendant Steven Shephard

unreasonably detained Plaintiff Antonio Flores in violation of his Constitutional right.

 Plaintiff Antonio Flores is entitled to an award of nominal damages as a matter of law.2

Conclusion

Based upon the jury’s responses to the special verdict form, the Court finds that Plaintiff

Antonio Flores is entitled as a matter of law to an award of nominal damages on his claim under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Antonio Flores and against

Defendant Steven Shephard on his claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and award nominal damages in

the amount of $1.00. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Defendants on the claims of all

remaining Plaintiffs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 21, 2008

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:04-cv-02337-IEG-NLS Document 222 Filed 11/21/08 Page 5 of 5