Judge v. County of Los Angeles CA2/8

Filed 8/30/23 Judge v. County of Los Angeles CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

MICHAEL JUDGE, B318649

Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. 19STCV06708

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark A. Borenstein, Judge, granting a new trial. Affirmed. Hurrell Cantrall, Thomas C. Hurrell and Melissa Cantrall for Defendants and Appellants. The Cochran Firm California, Brian T. Dunn for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________ Michael Judge sued the County of Los Angeles and Deputy Edwin Barragan because Barragan’s dog bit Judge. Judge’s theory was Barragan had the dog bite Judge more severely, and for longer, than was reasonable. The jury rendered a defense verdict, but the trial court granted a new trial because of juror misconduct and for other reasons. The jury misconduct was by Jonathan Cowley, the presiding juror, according to the declaration of another juror named Ulbaldo Cardenas. Cardenas declared that, during deliberations, Cowley “told us on several occasions that in the United Kingdom . . . he was employed as a police officer, and worked in the K-9 unit there. He told us that, based on his past experiences in the K-9 unit, the use of a police dog against the plaintiff was totally necessary in order to control him. When I told Mr. Cowley that the evidence we saw showed that the dogs listen to their commander and that the cop should have stopped the dog from biting the plaintiff sooner, Mr. Cowley said that, based on his personal experiences as a police officer, that this was not true. Cowley again told me and the other jurors that based on what he observed during his time in the K-9 unit, a police dog will only bite based on the need to control a person, and that, based on his personal experiences as a police officer, for the entire time that the dog was biting, the plaintiff must have been out of control for that whole time, and that the dog had to keep biting him to get him under control.” Cowley’s declaration denied Cardenas’s claims. The trial judge, however, accepted Cardenas’s credibility and granted Judge’s new trial motion. The County of Los Angeles and Barragan appealed. We affirm. We review this situation with