oF~as COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES o?~~ A~ C F ~:~ ~ '=`~"N CLAIMS BOARD ~~~~~. y, + ~.k~ 1 ~j:ii } 500 WEST TEMPLE STRI?ET { ~ r. it LOS ANGI?I,BS, CALIFORNIA 90012-2713 c ApfORN~ P'. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD John Naimo Auditor -Controller Steve Robles Chief Executive Oftice Roger H. G~anbo Office of the County Counsel NOTICE OF MEETING The County of Los Angeles Claims Board will hold a regular meeting on Monday, June 5, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., in the Executive Conference Room, 648 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration, Los Angeles, California. AGENDA Call to Order. 2. Opportunity for members of the public to address the Claims Board on items of interest that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Claims Board. 3. Closed Session —Conference with Legal Counsel —Existing Litigation (Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9). a. Vladimir Factor v. County of Los Angeles, et al. Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 575 259 This lawsuit arises from alleged injuries sustained in a vehicle accident involving an on-duty employee from the Department of Public Health; settlement is recommended in the amount of $30,000. See Supgortinq Document b. Ernesto Pena, Jr., by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Emiliano Pena v. Marie Girolamo, et al. Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 568 400 This lawsuit arises from allegations that a Public Defender failed to provide Plaintiff, a mentally incompetent adult, with adequate and legal representation; settlement is recommended in the amount of $489,500. See Supporting Documents HOA.101657442.
Transcript
oF~as COUNTY OF LOS ANGELESo?~~ A~CF~:~ ~ '=`~"N CLAIMS BOARD~~~~~.y ,+ ~.k~1 ~j:ii } 500 WEST TEMPLE STRI?ET{ ~ r.
it LOS ANGI?I,BS, CALIFORNIA 90012-2713
cApfORN~P'.
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
John NaimoAuditor-Controller
Steve RoblesChief Executive Oftice
Roger H. G~anboOffice of the County Counsel
NOTICE OF MEETING
The County of Los Angeles Claims Board will hold a regular meeting onMonday, June 5, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., in the Executive Conference Room, 648Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration, Los Angeles, California.
AGENDA
Call to Order.
2. Opportunity for members of the public to address the Claims Board onitems of interest that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of theClaims Board.
3. Closed Session —Conference with Legal Counsel —Existing Litigation(Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9).
a. Vladimir Factor v. County of Los Angeles, et al.Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 575 259
This lawsuit arises from alleged injuries sustained in a vehicleaccident involving an on-duty employee from the Department ofPublic Health; settlement is recommended in the amount of$30,000.
See Supgortinq Document
b. Ernesto Pena, Jr., by and through his Guardian Ad Litem,Emiliano Pena v. Marie Girolamo, et al.Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 568 400
This lawsuit arises from allegations that a Public Defender failedto provide Plaintiff, a mentally incompetent adult, with adequateand legal representation; settlement is recommended in theamount of $489,500.
See Supporting Documents
HOA.101657442.
Page 2
c. N.L.A., et al. v. County of Los Angeles, et al.United States District Court Case No. CV 15-02431
This wrongful death lawsuit concerns allegations of federal civilrights violations and excessive force when Plaintiff was shot whilehe fought and fled from Sheriffs Deputies; settlement isrecommended in the amount of $2,970,000.
See Supporting Documents
d. Claim of Tenaya Brown
Claimant alleges that the Sheriffs Department failed to protect herfrom false rumors which caused her ongoing humiliation, mentaland physical distress, and irreparable harm to her reputation;settlement is recommended in the amount of $45,000.
See Supporting Document
e. Fernando Anava v. County of Los Angeles, et al.Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 597 110
This lawsuit concerns allegations that an employee from theSheriffs Department was subjected to discrimination andretaliation on the basis of his disability, and that the Departmentfailed to engage in an interactive process or provide reasonableaccommodation; settlement is recommended in the amount of$75,000.
Non-Litigated Claim of Humberto Cortez
This claim arises from alleged damages sustained in a vehicleversus motorcycle accident involving an on-duty employee fromthe Fire Department; settlement is recommended in the amount of$30,000.
See Supporting Document
g. Wiley Crannev v. County of Los AngelesLos Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 619 749
This lawsuit concerns allegations that an employee from the FireDepartment was subjected to age and disability discrimination,harassment, and retaliation; settlement is recommended in theamount of $92,000.
HOA.101657442.1
Page 3
Shahidah Carter v. County of Los AngelesLos Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 559 177
This lawsuit concerns allegations that an employee from the ChildSupport Services Department was subjected to discrimination,and harassment, and that the Department failed to engage in aninteractive process to provide reasonable accommodation;settlement is recommended in the amount of $96,000.
Darick Hendrix v. County of Los AngelesLos Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 553 018
This lawsuit concerns allegations that an employee from theDepartment of Children and Family Services was subjected togender and disability discrimination, sexual harassment, andretaliation, and that the Department failed to engage in theinteractive process to accommodate his disability; settlement isrecommended in the amount of $137,500.
4. Report of actions taken in Closed Session.
5. Approval of the minutes of the May 15, 2017, regular meeting of theClaims Board.
See Supporting Document
6. Items not on the posted agenda, to be referred to staff or placed on theagenda for action at a further meeting of the Board, or matters requiringimmediate action because of emergency situation or where the need totake immediate action came to the attention of the Board subsequent tothe posting of the agenda.
7. Adjournment.
HOA.101657442.1
CASE SUMMARY
INFORMATION ON PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF LITIGATION
CASE NAME
CASE NUMBER
COURT
DATE FILED
COUNTY DEPARTMENT
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AMOUNT
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
COUNTY COUNSEL ATTORNEY
NATURE OF CASE
Vladimir Factor v. County of Los Angeles, of al.
BC575259
Los Angeles Superior Court
March 12, 2015
Public Health
$ 30, 000
Sepehr Omrani
Michael J. Gordon,Deputy County Counsel
On May 29, 2014, an employee of the Departmentof Public Health made aleft-hand turn from a stopsign on Stunt Road at its intersection withMulholland Highway in front of Plaintiff, who wastravelling northbound on Mulholland Highway withthe right-of-way, causing a collision. Plaintiff claimshe sustained a concussion and broke his right handduring the collision. He also claims propertydamage.
Due to the risks and uncertainties of litigation, a fulland final settlement of the case in the amount of$30,000 is recommended.
PAID ATTORNEY FEES, TO DATE
PAID COSTS, TO DATE
$ 79,278
$ 18,646
HOA.101626468.1
CASE SUMMARY
INFORMATION ON PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF LITIGATION
CASE NAME
CASE NUMBER
COURT
DATE FILED
COUNTY DEPARTMENT
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AMOUNT
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
COUNTY COUNSEL ATTORNEY
NATURE OF CASE
Ernesto Pena Jr., et ai. v. Marie Girolamo, et al.
1~~7~:~[~I~7
Los Angeles Superior Court
January 2, 2015
Public Defender
$ 489, 500
Paul W. Wong, EsquireLaw Offices of Paul W. Wong
Millicent L. RolonPrincipal Deputy County Counsel
This is a recommendation to settle for $489,500 alawsuit filed by Ernesto Pena Jr., by and through hisguardian ad litem Emiliano Pena, against the Countyand Deputy Public Defender Marie Girolamo,alleging legal malpractice and breach of fiduciaryc~ uty.
Because of the risks and uncertainties of litigation, areasonable settlement at this time will avoid furtherlitigation costs. Therefore, a full and final settlementof the case in the amount of $489,500 isrecommended.
PAID ATTORNEY FEES, TO DATE
PAID COSTS, TO DATE
.. ~~
$ 31,731
HOA.101353630.1
Case Name: Emllano Pena as guardian ad (item iar Etn~sto Pena, Jr. v. MarEeGirolamo and County of l.as Angels
Summary Corrective Ac~~an Plan
The intent of this ftirm is to assist depar#ments in writing a correctfva action plan summary for attachmentfo tt~e se~lement documents developed far the Board of Supervisors and/or the County of Los AngelesClaims Board. The summary should be a specific overview of the cEalmsllawsui#s' identified root causesand corrective actions (status, Elms frame, and responsible party). This summary does not replace theCorrective Action Plan form. If there is a questiarr related to can~dentialiiv, plsasa consultbounty Counsai.
pate of Incfdent/event: C}ctober 11, 1995
Briefly provide a description public Defender client ~rneato Pena aaoepted a plea bargain ~nof the lrtcldentJeve~tt: October 11, 1995 fpr a reduced charge. The reduced charge was added
to the I{st of crimes requiring sex registration effective January 9, 1996.Can January 2, 2014, the Public Defender's office made, and theSuperior Court granted, a motion to dismiss pursuant to Penal Code§1203.4 and a Petition for Certlflcatton of l~ehabiQtation and Pardon perPenal Cade §48 2.93. On January 31, 2g14, the pubilo Defender'soffice made and the Superior Court granted a Matlon to Withdraw thePlea pursuant to penal Code §1418, and the case was ordereddlsmisasd per Penal Code §1385. Thereafter, on May 19, 2014, thePubila Defender's office appeared far a PetiEian far s finding of factualinnocence which was granted par Penal Code §85~ .8. On January 2,2015, plaintiff Filed the Instant lawsuit.
Briefly describe the ~nnt aause[sl of the ciaim/lawsuit:
---In 20'f4, the Public Defender's Office filed papers in the bast inkerests of the client, however managerialapprova!/revfew was not required/conducted,
Briefly descr(be recammandeti correct{ve actions:(induda each on~recUve acttan, due date, responsible pally, and any disdpl(nary actions tP appropriate)
The Pubflc Defender's C}ffice vuiil require managerial approval prior to flfing a matfon for decfaratfon ofactusE innocence. Furthermore, the Public Defender's Office will provide actdikEonal training to staff on
Ddctament version: 4.0 (January 2013) Page 1 of 2
County of Las AngelesSummary corrective Action Plan
___
mattees where declaring a conflict (s at issue.
~. Are the corrective ackians addressing department-wide system (ssues7
~ Yes —The corrective actions address department-wide system issues.
D No —The cor~eckive actions are only applicable to the affected parties.
This is a recommendation to settle for $2,970,000,inclusive of attorneys' fees and costs, a federal civilrights and State-law wrongful death lawsuit filed byElvia Aguilar, the mother of decedent Noel Aguilar,and Mr. Aguilar's minor children, N.L.A. and C.M.G.
Due to the risks and uncertainties of litigation, areasonable settlement at this time will avoid furtherlitigation costs; therefore, a full and final settlementof the case in the amount of $2,970,000 isrecommended.
PAID ATTORNEY FEES, TO DATE
PAID COSTS, TO DATE
$ 224,612
$ 31,228
HOA.101523951.1
,~.
Case Name N L,A, v County of Los Anc~e(e~. et ai ^T~
~un~ima~y C~rr+~c~ive ,A~ti~n Ptar~
The. intent of this fiorm is to ass►st departments in writing a eorr~etive action pfah summary for ~tfachmentto the settlement documents d~vsloped for fihe hoard of Superrrisors and/~r the County t~f Los AngelesCf'aims board. The summary should be ~ specific overview of tk~e c(aimsll~wsu fs' identified raat causeand ~orreGtiye actions (status, time fr2~me, and responsibly party). This summary does not repiac~ theCorrective AcCian Plan form. 1f there is a questiart retafi~:d to confidenti~lity, please consult Gour~ty Cqunsel.
[3ate of incidenf/event; May 2~, 2Q14 .
Btieffy provide a des~riptiarr N.L.A, .v. County of E.os anpeles
of fhe nciden~/ev~nt: ~ummarys Correcfiue Action Plan 20't7-Oq3
On IV~ay 26, 2014, at ~pp~aximatefy 9;45 a.m., two uniFarme~ Las Angelesbounty deputy sheriffs assigned to Compton Station were an patrol in anunirteorpor~t~d ~re~ Qf Campton, The deputies observed a bicyclist (laterider~ti~ed as decedent) rid[rt~ f~fs b'rCycl~ ors the sidewalk and wearingear~hanes.
When tie decedent sew tha depw#ies' patrol vehicle, h~ staved peddlingfasEer eastbound anEo fast 89~ Way from northbound Long ,eachBoulevard and the deputies folfawed,
After tr~uelling a short drsEance,. the ~acsdent dumped nff his b~iaycle andran nnrthbaund in a~ efleyway between ap~rtm~nt buildings. Thepassenger deputy ~h~sed after tk~e decedent, 1`h~ driver advised thepasseng~t deputy #hit the decedent may ~~ art~t~d because he washgiding his waist area with one hand as he ran.
l'he drier deputy.. exited fhe ~~trpl vehicle and.rar~ northbound: i~ ~ parali~lelle}~ ~ just past of where fh~ decedent and passenger iieputy wireru~lning, As he ran northbound in the ~dj~cent alleyway, the driver deputyabserued the de~~ri~nt using bath hts handy to push peen an iron gateseparating: the twv alf~yw~ys. The driver deputy drew- his duty weaponand cart~manded the decedent t~ stop. Father than complying, thedecedent h~le4 his waist at~~ with his hands and continued runningnc~~tf~ba~nd. Af t~a~ paint, the dr€v~r depuCy tripped and fail aver unevenground. The decs~ent continued to run and the passerig~r deputyCpntitiu~d to fpllaw him. The driver deputy r~-holstered his weapon andfollowed the p~lr.
The decedent 5~tddenC~ stopped adjacent fo anotF~er iron gak~ and thep~~s~nger deputy caught, tacf<fed, and forced the decedent tp khe ground.
The driver deputy arrived sece~nds later and realizet~ the decedent wasviolen#ly sfruggling witk~ the passenger deputy.. The driver deputy usedhis test arm tca hold down the de~edenfi's right shoulder and used his leftknee to hrol~ the decedent's righ#arm.
The passenger deputy observed tiie decedent's hands wera untterneathhis body. Fearing the d'scedent was attempting to ~etri~ve a weapon, ar~di~ an attempt to cpntr~( €he decedent, tha passenger deputy struck thedecedent ~n his right elbow fauG fames with the handle portion of hisexpand~bi~ baton.
Qacument version: 4.0 (.fanuary 20f3) Page 1 of 4
r
County cif' Las- AngelesSummary Corr~ct~ve Action Plan
While struggling to control the decedent's hands, the passenger deputydiscovered the decedent's right hand was on a pistol that was concealedunder his cloths in his waistband. The passenger deputy advised hispartner fh~t the decedent had a gun. The passenger deputy reached in#athe decedent's waistband, recovered a pistol', and~then placed it into hisown front waistband.
Note: The passenger deputy sherifF dirt not advise the driver'deputy sheriff that he hed recovered the decedent's €itearrn,
gecaus~ the decedent continued #a s#ruggfe with both deputy sheriffs andhe eon#inued to move his h~r~tls info h(s waist. area,.. tha driver deputyfeared the decedent may still be armed and was attempting #o retrieve aweapon. The- driver deputy drew hJs duty weapon and pointed it at thedecedent's head white ordering the decedent to not move,
Thy passenger- dept~fy handcuffed the decedent's left wrist but could notmaintain control of his arm: Seconds later, the decedent. uio(ent(yincreased his r~slstance and used both of his hands to push. himself ~pthen again reaGh~d fir his waistband.. at that paint,. the driver deputyb~fl~ved the decedent was reaching for a gun acrd r~vas about to shoat.The driver deputy aimed his duty weapon at the decedent's abdomen andfired. The d~Fver deputy shit c~n~ round and atter~rpted tci fire twoaddifipnai rounds, but his duty weapon jarr~mecf and would not continueto Fire.
Immediately after the gunshgt, the passenger deputy screamed ̀I've beenshot2." The dciv~r deputy asked ttie passengar deputy,. "Did he shoatyou?" r~fer~ing ~o the decedent,
The decedent graf~bed the driver deputy's- duty weapon and attempted totike it away. The drivar deputy atruggfed -with the decedent overpo~sessian of hip duty weapon. The driver deputy was ~bl~ t~ maintainprimary controfi of t~is duty weapon, ciear~d the maFfuncton (by "rackinga round")', and fired one round aC cfase range s#raking the deced~nf in theleg. Aitt~ougf~ shot, the decadent continued to violently struggle with thedeputies,
Ttt~ passenger deputy b~i►eved that. the decedent wasp the personresponsible far shooting him; even after he hid Eaken one gun away fromhim. The passenger deputy knev~r that the- driver deputy and the decedenthad been fighting over pos$ession cif the driver deput~r"s duty weapon.The passenger deputy feared that the decedent either had a second gunor had retained the d~iuer d~put}t's duty weapon:, the passenger deputyknew that he was injured From a gunshot wound and felk he may nod beable- fo fight much longer, Based an the above, the passenger deputyfeared the decedent was a de~dEy threat to him and his partner. To stopthe decedent's deadly th~e~t, the passenger deputy fired three rounds atpoint bank range into the decedent's back.
The .driver deputy broadcast ~me~gency radio traffic that a deputy
The pistol w~is a laadeii "Taurus PT745 Pry Mi(Icnniurn", .4S ca['tber with six live, .a5 catit~er bullets. The pistoltivas concealed uttderneatli the decedent's clothes aad hcld in pkace by a green nylon web belt. The belt was notattached to the decedent's clothes or atiy other iCems ~~ad its only apparent ftmction vas to hold the pistol.It was later discovered khat the driver deputy's 'tired round missed the decedent and struck the passenger deputy,
Document version: 4.(~ (January 2013) Rage 2 of 4
County of Las AnglesSummary Correct ~e Action plan.
patrol deputies arrived on scene. Emergency medical personnel arrivedon scene. The clecedenf. was nt~t transpott~d to the hospital as he waspronounced dead at the scene. Both deputy sheriffs ware transported toSaint. ~raneis Hospital for medical treatment.
The passenger deputy sustained a singVe gunshot wound to hie abdomenthat str~rck the space above his gun belt out below his body armor. Thedriver deputy was tr~atad far abrasions, scrapes and bruises to his handsand arms.
1, Br~effy describe the coat causets) Af khe claimilawsuif;
I~ D~parknnent root cause in this Incident was_ the deputies' decision to engage iri a foot pursuit ~f as~tspecte~ armed suspect (later found to be armed with a firearm} without proper planning orcommurrlcation ~mongs# therr~selv~s, which ulEimat~ly led: tp the deadly force si#uation.
Another {~epartmen~ root cause in this inaidenf was the. deputy sheriffs' decision to partner sp11t duringthe foot pursuit.
Another Depa~tmen~ root. cause in this incident was a felc~ training afFicer`s failure to safely manage hisactions arrd the actions of his trainee, resulting in the s~riaus injury raf the fr~`rnee,
Aran-E3epa~rtmer~t root cause in this. incident was the decedent's failure to comply with the lawful ordersof Los- Angeles Cqu:nty deputy sheriffs. Instead of gbeyir~g order, the decedent fled from depufi~s onfoot. He was captured, a struggle ensued and the decedent atterrrpted #o grab a gun from one of thec{~puty sheriffs.. 1"he decedent's actions caused the deputies to fear for Fheir lives, resulting in a deputyinualv~d shooting.
2. Briefly describe recommended corrective actions:{Inciuda each carr~ctive actign, due date, responsible party, and any disciplinary actions if appropriate}
The incident was investigated by the Los Angeles County Sheriff"s Department Homicide Bureau Cndetermine if any criminal miscorrducf r~cc~rred.
Qn FebrU~ry 23; 2015, the Justice system Integri#y Division of the Die#rief Aftarn~y's C?ffice issued ause-of-farce- determination Fetter concluding that bath d~pufiss acted lawfully in self-defense during theMay 26, 20'fA incident and that fie. l7istr ct Attorney's nice waif not be taking any further action relatingto this incident.
1"his incident was investigated by repres~nfatives of the Sheriff I~epa.~finenf's Internal Affairs bureau todetermine if any admin stratiive m scar~duct occurred before, during, or after Phis incident. The resuCts ofthe investigafion were presented t~ the Execu#ive Force F2evi€~w Ct~mmittee {EFRC) for evaluation..Appropriate administrative action was talon.
Document vers~an: 4,0 (January 20.13) Page 3 of 4
County ~f Loa Ang~iasSummary Corrective Action Plan
3. Are the corrective actions addressing gepa~tmei7t-wide system issues?
C.~ Yes —The corrective actions address Qepartment-wide system issues.
~ No —The corrective actions are aniy applicabic to the affected parties.
as Angeles Counter. Sheeiffs DepartmentN~f1't8: (Risk Managemonf Coordinator)
5cc~tt E. Johnson, CaptainRisk IVlanagemerit Bureau
This is a recommendation to settle for $45,000 aslander and negligence government tort claim filedwith the County by Sheriffs Sergeant TenayaBrown. In the claim, Sergeant Brown alleges thatvarious members of the Sheriffs Departmentcirculated false rumors about her, which caused herongoing humiliation, mental and physical distress,and irreparable harm to her reputation.
Given the risks and uncertainties of litigation, areasonable settlement at this time will avoid furtherlitigation costs. Therefore, a full and final settlementof the claim in the amount of $45,000 isrecommended.
PAID ATTORNEY FEES, TO DATE
PAID COSTS, TO DATE
$ 0
~, ~
HOA.101606905.1
CASE SUMMARY
INFORMATION ON PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF LITIGATION
CASE NAME
CASE NUMBER
COURT
DATE FILED
COUNTY DEPARTMENT
Non-Litigated Claim of Humberto Cortez
N/A
N/A
November 9, 2015
Fire Department
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AMOUNT $ 30,000
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
COUNTY COUNSEL ATTORNEY
NATURE OF CASE
Kevin J. EngelienDeputy County Counsel
This claim arises from an automobile versusmotorcycle collision between claimant HumbertoCortez and an on-duty Los Angeles County FireFighter on November 9, 2015 on State Route 2.The collision occurred when the Fire Fighter abrubt~yveered the County vehicle to the right and collidedwith Mr. Cortez. Mr. Cortez was ejected from hismotorcycle and suffered bodily injuries as a result ofthe collision.
Due to the risks and uncertainties of litigation, a fullsettlement of the claim is warranted.
PAID ATTORNEY FEES, TO DATE
PAID COSTS, TO DATE
$ 0
$ 0
HOA.101631694.1
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CLAIMS BOARD
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
MAY 15, 2017
Call to Order.
This meeting of the County of Los Angeles Claims Board was called to order at
9:30 a.m. The meeting was held in the Executive Conference Room, 648 Kenneth Hahn
Hall of Administration, Los Angeles, California.
Claims Board Members present at the meeting were: Chair John Naimo, Steve Robies, and
Roger Granbo.
Other persons in attendance at the meeting were: Office of the County Counsel: Richard Kudo,
Jessica Rivas, and Jenny Tam; Fire Department: Anthony Marrone, Cynthia Maluto, and Julia
Bennett; Sheriffs Department: Judy Gerhardt, Carlos Parga, Kevin Pearcy, and Dominic
Darman; Department of Public Social Services: Arnetta Counts and Simone Agee; Internal
Services Department: Mark Colton and Erin Campos.
2. Opportunity for members of the public to address the Claims Board on items of
interest within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Claims Board.
One member of the public addressed the Claims Board.
3. Closed Session —Conference with Legal Counsel —Existing Litigation
(Subdivision (a) of Government Code section 54956.9)
At 9:32 a.m., the Chairperson adjourned the meeting into Closed Session to discuss the
items listed as 4(a) through 4(f) below.
4. Report of actions taken in Closed Session.
At 10:13 a.m., the Claims Board reconvened in open session and reported the actions
taken in Closed Session as follows:
a. Lillian Garcia, et al. v. County of Los Angeles~ et al.Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 561 344
This lawsuit arises from alleged injuries sustained when Plaintiff was hitby a Fire Department Lifeguard's vehicle.
Action Taken:
The Claims Board recommended to the Board of Supervisors thesettlement of this matter in the amount of $225,000.
Vote: Ayes: 3 —John Naimo, Steve Robles, and Roger Granbo
HOA.101651961.1
b. Benjamin Nicholas, et al. v. County of Los Angeles, et al.
Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 575 312
This lawsuit arises from alleged injuries sustained in a vehicle accident
involving a Sheriffs Department patrol car.
Action Taken:
The Claims Board approved the settlement of this matter in the amount of
$23,233.44.
Vote: Ayes: 3 —John Naimo, Steve Robles, and Roger Granbo
c. Raquel Rodriquez v. County of Los Angeles , et al.
Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 603 094
This lawsuit arises from alleged injuries sustained in a vehicle accident
involving a Sheriffs Department patrol car.
Action Taken:
The Claims Board approved the settlement of this matter in the amount of
$27,000.
Vate: Ayes: 3 —John Naimo, Steve Robles, and Roger Granbo
d. Jonathan Hatter v. County of Los AngelesLos Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 574 671
This dangerous condition lawsuit arises from injuries Plaintiff received
from a fall while at the lobby of a Department of Public Social Services'
office.
Action Taken:
The Claims Board approved the settlement of this matter in the amount of
$75, 000.
Vate: Ayes: 3 —John Naimo, Steve Robles, and Roger Granbo
e. Ghislaine Couchman v. County of Los Angeles
Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 591 734
This lawsuit arises from injuries Plaintiff sustained when she tripped and
fell on concrete rubble and debris in the parking lot at Harbor/UCLA
Medical Center.
Action Taken:
The Claims Board approved the settlement of this matter in the amount of
$60,000.
Vote: Ayes: 3 —John Naimo, Steve Robles, and Roger Granbo
HOA.101651961.1
f. Moises A. Sandoval and Martha A. Sandoval v. County of Los Angeles and
Richard HuquesLos Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 602 093
This lawsuit arises from alleged injuries sustained in a vehicle accident
involving an employee from the Internal Services Department.
Action Taken:
The Claims Board approved the settlement of this matter in the amount of
$95,000.
Vote: Ayes: 3 —John Naimo, Steve Robles, and Roger Granbo
5. Approval of the minutes of the May 1, 2017, regular meeting of the Claims Board.
Action Taken:
The Claims Board approved the minutes.
Vote: Ayes: 3 —John Naimo, Steve Robles, and Roger Granbo
6. Items not on the posted agenda, to be referred to staff or placed on the agenda for
action at a further meeting of the Board, or matters requiring immediate action
because of emergency situation or where the need to take immediate action came
to the attention of the Board subsequent to the posting of the agenda.
