Filed 5/26/21 O.G. v. City of L.A. CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO O.G., a Minor, etc., et al., B299186 Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC663056) v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Defendants and Respondents. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stephen M. Moloney, Judge. Affirmed. Guizar, Henderson & Carrazco, Angel Carrazco, Jr., and Kent M. Henderson for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Michael N. Feuer, City Attorney, Kathleen A. Kenealy, Chief Deputy City Attorney, Scott Marcus, Blithe S. Bock, Assistant City Attorneys, and Michael M. Walsh, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendants and Respondents. The Estate of Omar Gonzalez; O.G., a minor by and through his guardian ad litem Zoila Gutierrez; and M.G., a minor by and through his guardian ad litem Zoila Gutierrez (collectively, appellants) appeal from a judgment following a jury trial in this wrongful death lawsuit brought by appellants against the City of Los Angeles and Eden Medina (Officer Medina) (collectively, respondents). At the time of trial, appellants’ remaining causes of action against respondents were wrongful death based on negligence and wrongful death based on battery, each of which focused on whether Officer Medina’s use of force was reasonable under the circumstances. After hearing the evidence, the jury returned a unanimous defense verdict. On appeal, appellants claim that the trial court committed reversible error by denying appellants’ motion in limine to exclude evidence that Omar Gonzalez tested positive for methamphetamine postmortem. Appellants claim such evidence was irrelevant and highly prejudicial. Appellants also argue that the trial court erred in permitting the expert testimony of Richard Clark, M.D.; the laboratory results; and laboratory and chain of custody witness declarations of Robert W. Middleberg, Ph.D., and Sara Eskandary. Finally, appellants argue that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of drug paraphernalia. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On July 28, 2016, Los Angeles Police Officer Medina shot and killed Gonzalez following a car and foot pursuit. Officer Medina and his partner, Officer Higareda, were in full uniform in a marked black and white police vehicle working in a gang enforcement detail. Officer Medina was wearing a body-worn 2 video (BWV) and the police vehicle he and his partner used was equipped with digital in-car video. Upon information that another unit was attempting a traffic stop a few blocks away, Officer Medina and his partner went to assist. The suspect vehicle, in which Gonzalez was a passenger, refused to stop, resulting in a low speed chase. A radio report informed the officers they were pursuing a possible stolen car and that Gonzalez appeared to …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals