4:15-cv-00846
N.D. Cal.Oct 12, 2017Background
- Borges, mother of decedent Daren Borges, sues Humboldt County corrections personnel and CFMG for denial of adequate medical care and related claims; trial focused onCounty defendants’ cell checks and medical care procedures.
- CFMG defendants settled remaining claims with Borges for $250,000 on March 16, 2016.
- Jury found in Borges’ favor on three claims against County defendants, including Fourteenth Amendment due-process denial and 845.6 violation, with Monell liability against Humboldt County; award was $2.5 million in compensatory damages, no punitive damages.
- CFMG’s settlement encompassed some negligence and other claims not necessarily identical to the jury verdict’s injuries.
- County defendants moved to offset the settlement against the jury damages; the court analyzes waiver, same-injury prong, and indivisible-injury prong.
- Court denies offset in full.
- Procedural posture: motion to offset filed as Dkt. 252; ruling entered by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether offset is waived | Borges argues offset defense not pled timely; no waiver due to ineffective pleading. | County defendants contend offset is an affirmative defense; timely raised. | Waived as untimely affirmative defense. |
| Whether settlement and award were for the same injury | CFMG settlement and jury damages concern overlapping injuries. | Settlement and jury damages cover identical injury. | Not the same-injury; injuries and claims distinct. |
| Whether injury was indivisible so as to allow offset | Jury verdict reflects harms from County defendants’ conduct. | Injuries were indivisible due to joint liability. | Injury not indivisible; no offset. |
Key Cases Cited
- Velez v. Roche, 335 F. Supp. 2d 1022 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (two-prong test for offset; requires same injury and indivisibility)
- Goad v. Macon County, 730 F. Supp. 1425 (M.D. Tenn. 1989) (role of settling defendant distinct from trial defendants; not controlling here)
- Hazle v. Crofoot, 727 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2013) (indivisibility and joint liability considerations in offsets)
- Simmons v. Navajo County, 609 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2010) (pleading of affirmative defenses and timing concerns)