# Trejo v. California Forensic Medical Group

> District Court, S.D. California · September 26, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10640579

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. California
- **Decided:** September 26, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10640579

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5

6

7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9

10
JOSE TREJO, et al., Case No.: 20-cv-1465-DDL
11
Plaintiffs,
ORDER RE DAMAGES ON
12
v. PLAINTIFFS’ NEGLIGENCE
13 CLAIM
CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL
14
GROUP,
15 Defendant.
16
17 In February 2019, Jose Banda Pichardo (“Pichardo”) died by suicide while in
18 custody at the Imperial County Sheriff’s Department Regional Adult Detention Facility
19 (“ICRADF”). California Forensic Medical Group (“CFMG”) is a medical provider that
20 contracted with Imperial County to provide medical and mental health care to inmates at
21 ICRADF. Pichardo’s parents, Jose Trejo and Susana Banda, assert causes of action against
22 CFMG for negligence and wrongful death arising from their son’s suicide.
23 It is undisputed that Plaintiffs may not seek damages for Pichardo’s pre-death pain
24 and suffering under California law because the negligence claim is a survival action, and
25 this case was filed prior to January 1, 2022. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 377.34. However,
26 Plaintiffs assert they are entitled to seek damages for Pichardo’s pre-death pain and
27 suffering under Chaudhry v. City of Los Angeles, 751 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2014), and loss
28 / / /
1 of life damages under Valenzuela v. City of Anaheim, 6 F.4th 1098 (9th Cir. 2021). The
2 Court disagrees.
3 Both Chaudhry and Valenzuela considered the damages available for claims under
4 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In Chaudhry, the Ninth Circuit held that §377.34 “does not apply to
5 § 1983 claims where the decedent’s death was caused by the violation of federal law.”
6 Chaudhry, 751 F.3d at 1105; accord Valenzuela, 6 F.4th at 1103 (“Following Chaudhry,
7 we therefore hold that § 377.34’s prohibition of loss of life damages is inconsistent with
8 § 1983.”).1 The guiding principle of Chaudhry and Valenzuela is that “California’s
9 prohibition against pre-death pain and suffering damages limits recovery too severely to
10 be consistent with § 1983’s deterrence policy.” Chaudhry, 751 F.3d at 1105. That
11 principle does not govern where, as here, a plaintiff asserts claims only under California
12 law and not under § 1983.
13 “In diversity cases, a federal court must conform to state law to the extent mandated
14 by the principles set forth in the seminal case of Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 []
15 (1938).” Feldman v. Allstate Ins. Co., 322 F.3d 660, 666 (9th Cir.2003). Thus, “[p]ursuant
16 to Erie and its progeny, federal courts sitting in diversity apply state substantive law and
17 federal procedural law.” Id. “). “[A] federal court exercising supplemental jurisdiction
18 over state law claims is bound to apply the law of the forum state to the same extent as if
19 it were exercising its diversity jurisdiction.” Bass v. First Pac. Networks, Inc., 219 F.3d
20 1052, 1055 (9th Cir. 2000). Further, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that the right to
21 damages “is substantive, for the question of the proper measure of damages is inseparably
22 connected with the right of action, and numerous cases have held as much.” Clausen v.
23 M/V NEW CARISSA, 339 F.3d 1049, 1064-65 (9th Cir. 2003). See also Browning-Ferris
24 Indus. of Vermont, Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., 492 U.S. 257, 278 (1989) (“In a diversity
25 action, or in any other lawsuit where state law provides the basis of decision, the propriety
26
27
1 Unless otherwise noted, all internal quotation marks, ellipses, brackets, citations and
28
| an award of punitive damages for the conduct in question, and the factors the jury may
2 || consider in determining their amount, are questions of state law.”’).
3 Plaintiffs argue “the policies of Section 1983 should apply here,” including the
4 ||available damages. Dkt. No. 218 at 3. But Plaintiffs cite no case applying damages
5 || principles under § 1983 to state law claims solely because the defendant was acting under
6 ||color of state law. Indeed, if Plaintiffs were correct, damages for pre-death pain and
7 || suffering and loss of life under Chaudhry and Valenzuela would be available in every state
8 survival action in which a state actor is the defendant. That result cannot be squared
9 || with Erie’s requirement that Courts exercising diversity or supplemental jurisdiction apply
10 ||substantive state law and the Ninth Circuit’s recognition that damages are substantive.
11 || Accordingly, the Court concludes that California law provides the exclusive source of
12 available damages and that Plaintiffs may not seek damages for Pichardo’s pre-death pain
13 suffering and loss of life under Chaudhry and Valenzuela.
14 IT IS SO ORDERED.
15 || Dated: September 26, 2024 it
16 Tb hohe

18 United States Magistrate Judge
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10640579. Public record. Not legal advice.