Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jermaine Petit was shot on July 18, 2022, after Los Angeles officers responded to 911 calls reporting a man in a residential neighborhood who may have had a gun. Trial testimony and video showed that Officer Daryl Glover Jr.'s partner identified the object in Petit's hand as "not a gun." Sergeant Brett Hayhoe nevertheless fired two shots from his moving patrol vehicle through the open passenger window, striking Petit in the face, and Glover fired one shot as Petit fell, hitting him in the back. Neither officer gave a verbal warning before shooting. Petit dropped the object, which lay in plain view and out of reach, but no one called for medical assistance for approximately four minutes while Hayhoe coordinated a tactical plan to approach and arrest him. Petit survived and remained hospitalized until August 2022, but was found deceased at home from unknown causes on August 4, 2024.
Following Petit's death, his daughter Ashlyn Petit pursued excessive-force and related claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California law against the City of Los Angeles, Hayhoe, and Glover. She dismissed the ADA and municipal-liability claims before trial, and the court had previously denied summary judgment, including qualified immunity on the excessive-force claim. After a six-day trial in February 2026, the jury found Hayhoe liable for excessive force, denial of medical care, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and battery by a peace officer; found Glover liable only for battery by a peace officer; and found neither officer liable under the Bane Act. The jury awarded $1.5 million for physical pain and suffering and $1.5 million for mental and emotional pain and suffering. Defendants then renewed their Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law and moved under Rule 59(a) for a new trial on damages or remittitur.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the renewed JMOL. On the denial-of-medical-care claim, defendants could not newly assert qualified immunity because their pre-verdict Rule 50(a) motion raised only evidentiary insufficiency for that claim. On the preserved sufficiency challenge, the jury heard testimony and body-worn video from which it could find that Petit did not pose a threat, that Hayhoe could have summoned paramedics while officers secured the scene, and that postponing the call for four minutes extended the delay before treatment. Evidence of profuse bleeding, multiple transfusions, and expert testimony that blood loss and delayed oxygen increased the risk of brain damage supported causation. The court therefore found substantial evidence that Hayhoe unreasonably delayed care and exacerbated Petit's injuries.
On excessive force, the jury's supported finding of a constitutional violation resolved the first qualified-immunity prong against the officers. The evidence showed Petit was unarmed, committing no crime, posed no imminent harm, and was walking away when the officers shot him three times. The court again concluded that clearly established law prohibited deadly force where a suspect did not directly threaten officers and merely continued walking away. The battery argument failed for the same reason. The court also upheld the IIED verdict, finding the jury could reasonably conclude the shootings were extreme and outrageous and infer severe emotional distress from video of Petit bleeding and moaning, his extensive jaw fractures, implanted hardware, a bullet left in his body, and observed pain.
The court rejected both grounds for a new damages trial. Defendants did not adequately connect Petit's pre-shooting drug use to his post-shooting damages or make an adequate offer of proof; the evidence was substantially more prejudicial than probative, and no plain error or substantial prejudice was shown. Their objection to the non-physical-damages jury instruction was waived as untimely, and the court declined discretionary plain-error review. Although defendants preserved their verdict-form objection, any error was harmless. The court denied the new-trial motion and, for the same reasons, denied remittitur.
Key Takeaways
- A renewed Rule 50(b) motion cannot add qualified immunity to a claim when the pre-verdict Rule 50(a) motion challenged only evidentiary sufficiency.
- Testimony and video supported findings that the four-minute delay in summoning paramedics unreasonably delayed care and worsened Petit's injuries.
- Evidence that Petit was unarmed, posed no threat, and was walking away supported the excessive-force verdict and denial of qualified immunity.
- General assertions that prior drug use was relevant to damages did not overcome its substantial prejudice or preserve the objection without an offer of proof.
- The untimely jury-instruction objection was waived, and the preserved verdict-form objection failed under harmless-error review.
Why It Matters
The decision preserves the jury's liability allocation and the full $3 million award. It applies distinct post-trial standards: Rule 50(b) required substantial evidence and preservation of specific pre-verdict grounds, while Rule 59(a) permitted the court to weigh evidence and assess credibility but did not authorize a new trial merely because it might have reached a different verdict. Preservation requirements independently shaped the outcome, as the medical-care immunity argument was unavailable under Rule 50(b), the drug-evidence objection lacked an adequate offer of proof, and the damages-instruction objection was untimely.