Lawsuit over fatal shooting by law enforcement in Little Italy sparks spat between city and county

A man who sued the city and county of San Diego over the shooting death of his mother by sheriff’s deputies and a police officer has reached settlement agreements with all parties — but not before the lawsuit ends. sparked a bitter dispute between the government defendants.

Lawyers for City Attorney Mara Elliott’s office opposed the county’s agreement, writing that they were “stunned” when they learned the county had negotiated a settlement without them and asserting that ” the county had taken advantage of the city.” The city’s lawyers said the sheriff’s department’s “poor decisions, tactics and training” led to the fatal shooting at the Little Italy condominium complex.

County attorneys countered that they were forced to negotiate independently because the city was “unreasonable” in offering to pay only a fraction of a possible joint settlement.

The federal wrongful death lawsuit stems from the March 3, 2022, shooting of Yan Li, 47, a Yale-educated scientist whose son he said was “clearly in a state of mental crisis” when three county sheriff’s deputies and a San Diego police officer shot and killed her.

In December, the county agreed to pay Li’s son $825,000 to settle the dispute, although a judge must still approve the terms. The city asked the judge not to sign the county’s agreement. Last Friday, the city and the plaintiff reached their own settlement, the terms of which have not yet been made public.

“Our office is not at liberty to disclose potential terms of a settlement until the (municipal) council considers the matter in open session,” a spokesperson for the city attorney’s office said Thursday. ‘Union-Tribune. “We hope this will happen in the coming weeks.”

The events leading to Li’s death began when Deputy Jason Bunch attempted to serve him an eviction notice from his fifth-floor unit at the Acqua Vista Condominiums on West Beech Street. Li opened the door with a knife – her son claimed she was cooking at the time – to which Bunch responded by pulling out his gun and repeatedly threatening to shoot her, according to court footage. body-worn camera released after the shooting. Li fled home, but less than an hour later, police and officers accompanied by dogs entered her unit. Li charged the group, stabbing Officer Bret Edwards as deputies and officers fell on top of each other and fell into the hallway. The four police officers then opened fire.

Last March, a little more than a year after Li’s death, her son sued the county, the city, Bunch and the four law enforcement officers who shot his mother — sheriff’s Sgt. . Daniel Nickel, Sheriff’s Deputies Javier Medina and David Williams and Officer Rogelio Medina. The federal lawsuit contained 11 claims, including unlawful detention, excessive force, inadequate training, false arrest or imprisonment and negligence.

Over the next eight months, plaintiffs’ attorneys worked on a possible settlement with the county defendants, which include the county and the four deputies, and the city defendants, which include the city and Officer Medina. Stacy Plotkin-Wolff, chief deputy city attorney, wrote in court papers that she believed the city and county were working together to negotiate a settlement.

But at a mandatory Dec. 1 settlement conference with U.S. Judge Barbara Major, Plotkin-Wolff learned that was not the case.

“The city attorney was stunned and disheartened when she learned that the county had settled the case for $825,000, without the city,” Plotkin-Wolff wrote in a recent filing. In a related statement, she wrote that she was “stunned” and “dismayed” when she learned the county had negotiated and settled the case separately.

Earlier this month, the city attorney’s office filed a motion opposing the county’s settlement with Li’s son.

Plotkin-Wolff argued, in part, that the judge should reject the settlement because “the county’s settlement tactics were not in good faith.” She also argued that the sheriff’s deputies involved in the incident were more responsible for Li’s death than the single officer who fired the shots.

“The county should be prevented from leaving town to potentially bear the brunt of the county’s poor decisions, tactics and training,” Plotkin-Wolff wrote. “…The county defendants are primarily responsible for what happened here.”

The city attorney’s office also argued that the county’s settlement was too low compared to multimillion-dollar settlements and judgments that plaintiffs’ attorneys had obtained in other similar cases. “The colony is not anywhere near the ballpark, much less in the ballpark,” Plotkin-Wolff wrote.

Robert Ortiz, a senior deputy with the County Attorney’s Office, responded a few days later that the plaintiff had initially requested a $1.5 million settlement, so the amount the county agreed to pay “is within well within the range.”

Many of Ortiz’s key responses to the city’s allegations of bad faith negotiations are redacted in the publicly available court filing. But Ortiz suggested that when the city and county were negotiating as a united front early in the case, the city changed its position and was not willing to contribute significantly to the settlement total.

“Given the evolving settlement positions of the City Defendants, the County Defendants decided to negotiate independently” at the Dec. 1 mandatory settlement conference, Ortiz wrote. “…The City Defendants’ insistence on contributing only a limited amount to an overall resolution was unreasonable and required the County Defendants and Plaintiffs to work even harder to reach a fair and reasonable resolution. “

A county spokesperson said the dispute would not affect future cases involving both the city and county.

“The County Council and the City Attorney’s Office will continue their working relationship, advocating for the interests of their respective clients,” Michael Workman told the Union-Tribune Thursday. “Each case is and will continue to be handled professionally by our respective offices. »

The city attorney’s spokesperson declined to answer questions about the relationship between the two offices.

The judge has not yet ruled on the city’s motion opposing the county’s settlement.