Hung Lam v. City of San Jose
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 17105
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Incident: Officer Dondi West shot Hung Lam during a response to a 911 call about an argument and a man with a knife; Lam was shot in the back and became a paraplegic.
- Conflicting testimony: Neighbor Helen Anderson testified West shot Lam in the back while Lam posed no threat; West and other officers testified Lam had a knife and appeared to stab himself or move toward West prior to shots.
- Trial result: Jury found West used unreasonable force, violated the Bane Act, and was negligent (65% fault), but did not find battery; awarded Lam $11.3 million; Monell claims against the city and chief were dismissed earlier.
- Procedural posture: District court denied West’s motion for a new trial and declined to give special interrogatories; West appealed those rulings and argued instructional errors and entitlement to qualified immunity on appeal.
- Preservation issue: West sought qualified immunity at summary judgment (denied) but did not file Rule 50(a)/(b) motions at trial to preserve post‑verdict qualified immunity for appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of new trial based on weight of evidence | Lam: jury verdict supported by Anderson and corroborating testimony | West: Anderson's testimony contradicted physical evidence, so verdict lacks support | Affirmed—district court did not abuse discretion; Anderson’s testimony provided substantial evidence |
| Failure to give special interrogatories (to aid qualified immunity) | Lam: not applicable | West: district court should have submitted interrogatories so qualified immunity could be decided post‑verdict | Affirmed—court has discretion to decline; West failed to propose interrogatories and did not preserve issue properly |
| Omission of separate deadly‑force (Garner) instruction | Lam: general reasonableness instruction sufficed | West: jury should have been instructed on Garner’s imminent‑threat standard for deadly force | Affirmed—Scott v. Harris eliminated requirement of separate Garner instruction; general reasonableness charge adequate |
| Failure to instruct that “bad tactics” alone are insufficient for liability | Lam: facts and tactics were for the jury under Graham reasonableness test | West: needed specific instruction that bad tactics do not equal constitutional violation | Affirmed—district court’s general Graham/reasonableness instructions covered relevant factors; no abuse of discretion |
| Preservation of qualified immunity for appeal | Lam: qualified immunity was litigated at summary judgment and denied; trial proceeded | West: appellate review required; trial court’s choices prevented a post‑verdict qualified immunity ruling | Held against West—failed to file Rule 50(a)/(b) motions; forfeited the right to raise qualified immunity on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724 (9th Cir.) (standard for reviewing denial of new trial)
- Kode v. Carlson, 596 F.3d 608 (9th Cir.) (abuse‑of‑discretion scope in new‑trial review)
- Ruvalcaba v. City of Los Angeles, 167 F.3d 514 (9th Cir.) (district court discretion on special interrogatories)
- Acosta v. Hill, 504 F.3d 1323 (9th Cir.) (effect of Scott on deadly‑force instruction requirement)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (U.S. Supreme Court) (deadly‑force reasonableness standard)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (U.S. Supreme Court) (no separate Garner on/off rule; use general reasonableness analysis)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. Supreme Court) (Fourth Amendment reasonableness test for use of force)
- Tortu v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 556 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir.) (preservation rules for qualified immunity via Rule 50 motions)
- Monroe v. City of Phoenix, 248 F.3d 851 (9th Cir.) (prior rule requiring Garner instruction, later superseded)
- Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226 (U.S. Supreme Court) (qualified immunity as an affirmative defense)