Subpoena fracas case yields one dollar in nominal damages

This case began when a sheriff's deputy showed up at someone's property to serve process. People hate it when process servers show up. This one was a subpoena for debt collection. A fracas broke out and other police showed up. The property owners brought a lawsuit for excessive force and trespass. The case went to trial and there was a mistrial. In the end, the plaintiffs end up with a dollar.

The case is Wierzbic v. Howard, a summary order issued on December 1. After trial, the jury deadlocked and a mistrial was declared. That did not prevent the trial judge from entertaining defendants' motions for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50.

The false arrest and excessive force claims were dismissed under Rule 50. One plaintiff loses the false arrest claim because the officer had "arguable probable cause" in that he had a reasonable basis to believe the plaintiff was violating the law when he waived a pair of pliers at head level and shouted profanities at the officer and told him to get off the property. When the officer told this plaintiff to put down the pliers, the plaintiff refused to do so. That is enough to arrest someone; the officer rationally believed the plaintiff intended to place him in fear of physical injury, which violates the New York menacing law. The Court of Appeals (Parker, Chin and Stanceu [D.J.]) affirms this holding. 

The district court also granted JMOL on the excessive force claims. While the plaintiff said the officer punched him in the head, that happened after plaintiff was placed under arrest and would not drop the pliers. Plaintiff was also trying to flee. So some force was justified in effectuating the arrest. While the officer punched plaintiff in the back and in the back of the head, this was a de minimus use of force, not enough for a Section 1983 claim. The same analysis applies to the use of pepper spray to subdue plaintiff. While plaintiff claimed the officer smashed his face into the ground, such a claim would normally be sent to the jury, but not this one. The claimed injuries were not consistent with that claim because it took place on a stone driveway, but the photographs only depicted small scratches and some discoloration. There is no evidence that plaintiff went to the hospital or received treatment for his injuries.

The trespass claim is a different story. The officer would not leave the property as directed, so that constitutes a trespass. But what are the damages? Plaintiffs say the damages are the lost tomato plants they could not water that day because the officer had shown up at the property and would not leave, resulting in their arrest. But the trial judge noted that it was plaintiffs' affirmative actions that day which prevented them from watering the plants, in resisting the officer's authority. That will get you nominal damages. The Court of Appeals agrees.