INVESTIGATIONS Locates


DISCRETION AND CONFIDENTIALITY Asset Investigations


Rush & Difficult Service of Process Surveillance


Whistleblowers — continued from Prev. Pg.


93 F.3d 547, 553.) But note that survivor claims falling within the purview of the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA) are limited to pecuniary losses and do not allow a claim for the decedent’s pre- death pain and suffering. (Dooley v. Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd. (1998) 524 U.S. 116, 124.) With respect to civil rights claims


23 Years of Experience 818.344.2193 tel


818.344.9883 fax PI 14084


ken@shorelinepi.com


www.shorelinepi.com 800.807.5440


under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 the recovery of pre-death pain and suffering depends on the district you file in. As discussed earli- er, in Guyton the Northern District for California held that California’s prohibi- tion of pre-death pain and suffering would not be applied in a section 1983 action because it was inconsistent with the purposes underlying the federal statute. Guyton has been followed in the Northern District and even extended to cases in which the cause of the decedent’s death was not connected to the civil right violation. (Williams v. City of Oakland (N.D.Cal. 1996) 99 F.Supp. 1074.) While the unpublished case of Mahach-Watkins v. Depee (N.D.Cal. 2007) 2007 WL 3238691, followed the Eastern District case Venerable v. City of Sacramento (E.D.Cal. 2002) 185 F.Supp.2d 1128, it addressed neither Guyton nor Williams and is thus of questionable precedential value. Guyton has been followed in the


Central District of California, where pre- death pain and suffering damages are allowed. (Garcia v. Whitehead (C.D.Cal. 1997) 961 F.Supp. 230, 233; T.D.W. v. Riverside County (C.D.Cal. 2009) 2009 WL 2252072.) But the Eastern District uniformly


holds that pre-death pain and suffering damages are not recoverable. (Venerable v. City of Sacramento (E.D. Cal. 2002) 185 F.Supp.2d 1128.) In the very recent case of Duenez v. City of Manteca (E.D.Cal. October 27, 2011) 2011 WL 5118912, District Court Judge Lawrence Karlton wrote that, in his mind, the reasoning of the Southern, Central and Northern Districts in California that California’s limitation on recovery of pre-death pain and suffering is inconsistent with the pur- poses of section 1983 is more persuasive,


60 — The Advocate Magazine JANUARY 2012


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96