Gomez v. Galman
24-30207
5th Cir.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Jorge Gomez sued two off-duty New Orleans police officers (Galman and Sutton) and the City of New Orleans after a 2018 bar fight left him injured; the officers were later criminally charged.
- Gomez’s claims included federal § 1983 claims against the officers, negligent hiring/retention/supervision claims against the City, and state law claims under the Louisiana Public Records Act (LPRA).
- The district court initially dismissed some claims, but the Fifth Circuit in a prior appeal (Gomez I) reinstated the § 1983 and negligence claims against Galman and the City.
- At trial, the district court improperly submitted to the jury the legal question of whether the City had a duty to Gomez, resulting in a complete defense verdict.
- After trial, the court denied Gomez actual damages and attorney’s fees for the LPRA claims, finding the City’s records delay not arbitrary/capricious and that Gomez did not prove damages.
- On this second appeal, the Fifth Circuit reviewed whether the jury instructions and LPRA rulings were legally correct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether duty in negligent hiring under LA law is jury or court question | Duty is a question of law for the court | Duty requires factfinding on unique opportunity | Court: Duty is law for court—not jury; reversal/remand |
| Whether improper jury instructions require reversal | Jury was confused, outcome possibly affected | Flawed charge immaterial: Galman not at fault | Jury confusion substantial; reversal required |
| Whether City’s delay in LPRA response was arbitrary/capricious | Delay was arbitrary and entitled to damages | Delay justified due to request volume | No clear arbitrariness; denial of actual damages affirmed |
| Whether Gomez is entitled to attorney’s fees under LPRA | Fees mandatory when plaintiff prevails | No fees—Gomez sued before response deadline | Court vacates and remands to consider proper standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Gomez v. Galman, 18 F.4th 769 (5th Cir. 2021) (duty in negligent hiring is a question of law for the court)
- Roberts v. Benoit, 605 So. 2d 1032 (La. 1991) (scope of protection of duty is a separate inquiry from existence of duty)
- Smith v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 540 So. 2d 363 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1989) (existence of duty is a question of law)
- Griffin v. Kmart Corp., 776 So. 2d 1226 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2000) (duty in Louisiana negligence law reserved for the judge)
- Kelley v. Dyson, 10 So. 3d 283 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2009) (duty standard in negligent hiring: unique opportunity to commit tort)