What Happened in Canoga Park — and What the Law Gives You Now
On Saturday night, June 13, 2026, you were celebrating. The New York Knicks had just won the NBA championship, and in your condominium on Jordan Avenue in Canoga Park, you were screaming with the kind of joy that comes from years of hoping. Jameson, your dog, was right there with you. He was wearing a Knicks jersey. He was part of the celebration. He was part of your family.
Then someone called 911. They thought you were in trouble. The Los Angeles Police Department responded. And in the hallway outside your door, officers discharged their firearms and killed Jameson.
The cellphone video captured what happened next. You, on your knees, screaming: “Oh my god! Oh my God! I cannot believe this is happening. We were just celebrating the Knicks. We were f—— celebrating the Knicks.” A photo taken moments before the shooting shows Jameson in his Knicks shirt, alive. A memorial is now growing in the hallway where neighbors watched him die.
We are sorry this happened to your family. Jameson was not “property” in the way that word usually means. He was a member of your household — fed, walked, dressed in a Knicks jersey, loved. The way he died, in a hallway, during a celebration, in front of you, is something California law was built to address, even if the law has not always caught up to what a dog means to a family.
This page is for you, and for every California family whose dog, cat, or companion animal has been killed by police who had other options. It explains what the law actually says, what the City of Los Angeles will do next, what evidence you need to preserve, and what a claim like this is worth. We have handled cases against government entities, against insurance companies, and against the kind of institutional machinery that buries individual grief under procedure. The first step is to understand what you are facing.
What the News Reports Tell Us About the Canoga Park Shooting
The facts that have emerged are consistent across witness accounts, the cellphone video obtained by ABC7 Los Angeles, and the statements from the Los Angeles National Action Network. We will walk through them because every one of them matters to the legal claim that follows.
On the evening of Saturday, June 13, 2026, LAPD officers from the Topanga Division responded to a 911 call about a woman screaming inside a condominium on Jordan Avenue in Canoga Park. The caller, a neighbor across the street, sincerely believed the woman was in trouble. Officers arrived at the multi-unit residential building and encountered the woman’s dog — Jameson — in the hallway. Within moments, officers discharged their firearms and fatally wounded the animal.
The cellphone video shows the owner’s immediate, visceral grief. “He’s such a good dog!” she can be heard screaming. Raymon Alvarez, a neighbor who was heading out for a walk when the shooting occurred, described the sound of the gunfire as something foreign to the area. “I didn’t think they were gunshots at first because this area is not really known for any sort of gun violence.” The neighbor who placed the 911 call has spoken off-camera, expressing guilt while maintaining that they genuinely believed their neighbor was in danger.
Activists from the National Action Network held a press conference at LAPD headquarters on Tuesday, June 16, demanding the immediate release of body-worn camera footage and the identification of the officers involved. Najee Ali, Senior Organizer of the Los Angeles National Action Network, stated: “The tragic killing of Jameson was unnecessary and unwarranted. We demand immediate accountability, which can only happen through the prompt release of the body-worn camera footage and the names of the officers responsible for shooting and killing Jameson.”
The dog owner’s son has said off-camera that his mother was simply celebrating the Knicks’ championship win, and that Jameson was energetic but not violent. The circumstances that led to the shooting are under review. The officers have not been publicly identified.
None of this changes the central fact: a family dog was killed by police in a residential hallway, during a celebration, in front of the person who loved him most. California law gives that family a path forward, even if it requires fighting for it.
The Legal Hurdle: California Calls Your Dog “Property” — and Why That Is Not the End
California law, like the law in most states, classifies pets as personal property. This is the single most difficult thing for a grieving owner to hear, because no one who has buried a dog in a Knicks jersey thinks of that dog the way they think of a broken television. The law, however, has been slowly evolving — and the avenues for recovery are wider than most families realize.
The starting point is the property classification itself. Under California Civil Code § 1840 and related provisions, a dog is a species of personal property. That means the legal system measures the “value” of Jameson in the same way it would measure the value of a piece of furniture — by market price. For a mixed-breed family dog, market value is often distressingly low: a few hundred dollars, perhaps a few thousand if the dog was a pedigreed breed with documentation.
But California courts have recognized that market value is not the only measure of what was lost. The concept of “intrinsic value” allows a jury to consider the actual worth of an animal to its owner — the companionship, the affection, the daily routines, the years of life stolen. California appellate courts have allowed intrinsic value damages in cases where the animal’s value to the family clearly exceeded any market figure. The Ninth Circuit, which governs federal civil rights claims arising in California, has recognized that the killing of a companion animal can constitute a “seizure” of property under the Fourth Amendment — and that seizure must be reasonable under the circumstances.
There is also the emotional dimension, which the law has come to recognize in narrow but important ways. California allows claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) where the defendant’s conduct was extreme and outrageous, and the plaintiff suffered severe emotional harm as a result. The witnessing of a companion animal’s violent death at the hands of police, in one’s own home, while screaming in celebration moments earlier, is the kind of conduct that meets the high bar California has set for IIED claims.
And there is the Bane Act — California Civil Code § 52.1 — which we will discuss in detail below. The Bane Act is a civil rights statute that allows recovery of statutory damages and attorney fees when officers use threat, intimidation, or coercion to interfere with constitutional rights. In cases involving the killing of a pet during a police encounter, the Bane Act can transform a modest property claim into a meaningful civil rights action.
The point is this: the property classification is a starting point, not a ceiling. California law has multiple paths through the property framework, and the most powerful of them does not depend on Jameson’s market value at all.
The Fourth Amendment: Killing a Pet Can Be an Unreasonable Seizure
When police discharge their firearms and kill a dog, they have “seized” that dog within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Your dog is an effect. The shooting was a seizure. The question is whether it was reasonable.
Federal courts have answered that question with increasing clarity over the past two decades. The Ninth Circuit, which governs federal civil rights claims in California, has acknowledged that the killing of a companion animal during a police encounter can violate the Fourth Amendment when the force used was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances. Other federal circuits have reached the same conclusion in cases where officers used lethal force against pets that posed no immediate threat of serious injury.
The legal standard is straightforward, even if the facts of any given case are not. An officer’s use of force — including deadly force against an animal — must be objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting the officer, judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene. The inquiry asks whether the officer’s actions were reasonable, not whether the officer had bad intentions. Reasonableness is judged against what the officer knew at the time, not what investigators learn afterward.
That standard creates several questions that matter to the Canoga Park case. Was Jameson charging the officers, or standing in a hallway? Was he barking and moving in a way that an objectively reasonable officer would interpret as an imminent threat of bodily harm? Or was he an “energetic” dog — the word his owner’s son used — in a residential hallway, during a celebration that had already drawn police attention?
Body-worn camera footage will answer those questions. So will the neighbor cellphone video. So will the veterinary necropsy — the bullet trajectory, the distance, the dog’s final posture. The Fourth Amendment claim lives or dies on what those records show, which is why the evidence preservation section below is not an afterthought. It is the case.
When an officer’s use of force against a pet violates the Fourth Amendment, that officer is personally liable for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The officer may raise qualified immunity as a defense, arguing that the right was not “clearly established” at the time of the violation. We will address that defense in the playbook section below. For now, the key point is this: the Fourth Amendment gives you a federal civil rights claim against the individual officers, in addition to the state-law claims against the City of Los Angeles.
The Bane Act: California’s Civil Rights Tool Against Police Overreach
California Civil Code § 52.1, known as the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, is one of the most powerful civil rights statutes in the state. It was enacted to address precisely the kind of conduct that occurred in Canoga Park: law enforcement officers using their authority to interfere with the constitutional rights of the people they are sworn to protect.
The Bane Act provides a cause of action against any person — including a police officer — who “interferes by threat, intimidation, or coercion” with the exercise or enjoyment of constitutional rights. The statute is deliberately broad. It does not require that the officer intended to violate the plaintiff’s rights. It requires only that the officer’s conduct involved threat, intimidation, or coercion, and that conduct actually interfered with a constitutional right.
In the context of a dog shooting during a police response, the Bane Act claim turns on whether the officers’ use of force — the threat or actual use of firearms against a dog in the owner’s presence — interfered with the owner’s constitutional rights. The Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure is one such right. The Fourteenth Amendment right to due process — including the right to enjoy the companionship of one’s property without arbitrary governmental interference — is another.
The Bane Act is powerful for two reasons beyond its substantive reach. First, it allows recovery of statutory damages. Recent amendments to the statute provide for a minimum recovery, with the precise amount depending on the court interpreting the current language. Second, and often more importantly, the Bane Act mandates an award of attorney fees to a prevailing plaintiff. This fee-shifting provision is what allows families with limited resources to hire counsel in cases where the underlying property damage — the market value of a dog — might not otherwise justify the cost of litigation. The Bane Act is designed to level the playing field between individual citizens and government defendants, and it does so by ensuring that the lawyers who take these cases can be paid for their work, win or lose on the damages, so long as the plaintiff prevails on the claim.
There are procedural limits. A Bane Act claim against a police officer may be subject to the California Tort Claims Act if the officer was acting in the course and scope of employment — which, in a case like Canoga Park, the officers almost certainly were. This means the Bane Act claim against the City must be preceded by a Government Claim filed within six months. We will address that requirement in the next section.
LAPD’s Own Policy on Use of Force Against Animals — and How It Was Violated
Officers do not have unlimited authority to use lethal force against animals. The LAPD’s own policy — Manual Section 1/556.10 — governs the use of force against animals and establishes a standard that the conduct in Canoga Park appears to have violated on the facts as reported.
Under LAPD policy, officers are authorized to use force against an animal only when the animal poses an immediate threat of injury. The policy is consistent with the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) guidelines on dog encounters, which emphasize that officers must read canine body language to distinguish between “energetic” and “aggressive” behavior. An energetic dog — one that is excited, moving, barking — is not necessarily an aggressive dog, and the distinction matters under both departmental policy and the constitutional standard.
POST training materials specifically address the difference between a dog that is approaching an officer out of curiosity or territorial defense, and a dog that is preparing to attack. Body posture, tail position, ear position, vocalization, and movement pattern all provide information. An officer who has been trained to read these signals — and LAPD officers receive this training — is expected to apply that training before using lethal force.
The facts as reported suggest that Jameson was energetic but not violent. The owner’s son described him as “energetic but not violent.” The dog was in a hallway — a confined space — wearing a Knicks jersey. There is no indication in the public reporting that Jameson had bitten anyone, had charged the officers, or had done anything that would have signaled an imminent threat of serious bodily harm.
If the body-worn camera footage confirms that Jameson was not charging, not attacking, and not posing an imminent threat, then the officers’ use of lethal force violated LAPD policy. A violation of departmental policy does not automatically prove a constitutional violation, but it is powerful evidence. A jury asked to decide whether lethal force was “objectively reasonable” will want to know what the officers’ own department said about when such force is permitted. The answer, in this case, appears to be: not here, not like this, not against a dog in a hallway during a celebration.
This is also where the potential Monell claim against the City of Los Angeles becomes relevant. Under Monell v. Department of Social Services, a municipality can be held liable for constitutional violations caused by its policies, customs, or practices. If LAPD’s training on dog encounters is deficient — if officers are not being taught to distinguish between energetic and aggressive behavior, or if the training does not emphasize non-lethal alternatives like tasers, OC spray, or simply waiting for the owner to secure the animal — then the City itself may be liable for the constitutional violation, in addition to the individual officers.
Under LAPD Manual Section 1/556.10, officers are authorized to use force against an animal only when the animal poses an immediate threat of injury. California POST guidelines require officers to read canine body language to distinguish between “energetic” and “aggressive” behavior before resorting to lethal force.
How to File a Claim Against the City of Los Angeles — the Six-Month Clock
If you intend to sue the City of Los Angeles — and almost any case involving LAPD conduct requires suing the City, because the officers are acting in the course and scope of their employment — California law requires you to file a Government Claim first. This is a formal claim, filed with the City’s Claims Board, that gives the City notice of your claim and an opportunity to settle before a lawsuit is filed.
Under the California Tort Claims Act, Government Code § 911.2, a claim for personal injury or property damage must be filed with the public entity within six months of the incident. The clock started running on June 13, 2026. Six months from that date is December 13, 2026. Miss that deadline, and your right to sue the City is gone — not delayed, not reduced, gone.
The Claims Board will then have 45 days to act on the claim. If the Board rejects the claim, or if 45 days pass without action, you have six months from the date of the rejection (or the date the 45-day period expired) to file a lawsuit in court. If you plan to sue in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal court will still require that you have either obtained a final denial from the Claims Board or waited 45 days for the Board to act. This is a procedural requirement, and courts strictly enforce it. Late claims are dismissed, no matter how strong the underlying case.
There is an exception for claims that would be barred by the six-month deadline if the claimant was unable to file sooner. Government Code § 911.4 allows late presentation if the claimant was “prevented from filing by causes beyond his or her control,” but the exception is narrow and difficult to invoke. The grief and shock of losing Jameson may constitute such cause, but the courts have not always been sympathetic, and relying on the exception is risky.
What you need to know is this: the clock is running now. We file the Government Claim on your behalf, with the right statutory language, with the right attachments, with the right proof of service. If the deadline is approaching and the claim has not been filed, you have lost a right that cannot be restored.
The claim itself does not need to be a masterpiece of legal drafting. It needs to identify the date, place, and circumstances of the loss, the names of the public employees involved (if known), the amount of the claim, and the basis for the claim. We handle the drafting, the filing, and the proof of service. What it cannot do is wait.
Evidence Preservation: What Exists, Who Holds It, and How Fast It Dies
In a case like this, evidence is the case. The body-worn camera footage, the 911 audio, the dispatch logs, the neighbor cellphone video, the veterinary necropsy, and the officers’ training records are not supporting materials. They are the case. And every one of them is on a clock.
Body-Worn Camera Footage. AB 748, the California law requiring disclosure of body-worn camera footage in critical incidents, provides a 45-day window for release — but the footage exists from the moment the officers turned on their cameras. The LAPD has not yet released the footage from the Canoga Park shooting. Under AB 748, the department is required to release footage of officer-involved shootings within 45 days of the incident, unless release would substantially interfere with an active investigation. We can demand the footage before the 45-day window expires. We can also seek a court order compelling release if the department invokes the investigation exception in bad faith.
911 Audio and Dispatch Logs. The original 911 call — the one that brought officers to Jordan Avenue — is critical evidence. How was the call characterized? Did the caller say “domestic violence” or “noise complaint” or “woman screaming”? Did the dispatcher code the call as a priority-one emergency or a lower-priority response? The LAPD’s Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) logs record this information, and they are subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and through discovery in litigation. But digital records can be archived, overwritten, or purged. We send a preservation demand immediately.
Veterinary Necropsy. The dog’s body is evidence. A necropsy performed by an independent veterinary pathologist can determine bullet trajectory, the distance from which the shots were fired, and the dog’s position at the time of the shooting. A dog that was shot from behind was not charging. A dog that was shot while standing still was not attacking. These are objective findings that the necropsy can establish — but only if the necropsy is performed before burial or cremation. If Jameson has already been buried or cremated, this evidence is lost. The window for a necropsy is days, not weeks.
Neighbor Cellphone Video. The video obtained by ABC7 Los Angeles is already in the public domain, but other neighbors may have their own recordings. Cellphone videos can be deleted accidentally, lost when a phone is damaged, or overwritten when storage runs out. We contact witnesses early, preserve their recordings, and obtain sworn statements while memories are fresh.
Officer Training Records. The officers’ training files on dog encounters, de-escalation, and use-of-force continuum are subject to discovery, but they must be specifically requested. These records can establish whether the officers received the training they were supposed to receive, and whether that training was adequate. For a Monell claim against the City, the training records are often the centerpiece of the evidence.
The Hallway Itself. The physical location — the hallway on Jordan Avenue — is evidence. Bullet casings, blood spatter, the distance from the door to where Jameson fell, sight lines from the officers’ position. If the scene has not been preserved, this evidence may already be compromised. The memorial that neighbors are building, while understandable and beautiful, may also be disturbing physical evidence.
The preservation letter goes out the day you call. It demands that the City, the LAPD, and any other potential defendants preserve all evidence related to the incident. The letter itself does not preserve the evidence — only the recipient’s compliance does — but the letter creates a legal record that spoliation (destruction of evidence) after the date of the letter will expose the defendant to sanctions, adverse inference instructions at trial, and potentially an independent tort claim for spoliation under California law.
The City’s Playbook — and How to Counter Every Move
Government entities do not defend police misconduct cases passively. The City of Los Angeles has a claims-handling operation that moves in predictable ways, and knowing the playbook is the difference between a settlement that respects what Jameson meant to your family and a denial that treats him as a piece of furniture.
Play 1: The Quick Settlement Offer. Within weeks of the incident, the City’s Claims Board may reach out with a settlement offer. The offer will be framed as “resolving this quickly so the family can move on.” The number will be calibrated to the market value of the dog — a few hundred to a few thousand dollars — and it will be presented as generous. The purpose of the offer is to close the case before the Bane Act, the § 1983 claim, the intrinsic value argument, and the attorney fees provision come into play. The counter: no settlement discussions before the body-worn camera footage is released and reviewed. The footage will show what the officers did, and the City’s negotiating position will change when the footage is public.
Play 2: The Internal Affairs Interview Request. LAPD Internal Affairs will likely request an interview with the owner. The interview will be framed as “helping us understand what happened.” The actual purpose is to obtain a recorded statement that can be used to lock the owner into a version of events before counsel is involved. The counter: decline the interview until counsel is present, and provide a written statement through counsel only. This is not obstruction. It is the exercise of a constitutional right, and the LAPD cannot compel the interview as a condition of any future cooperation.
Play 3: The Qualified Immunity Defense. The individual officers will assert qualified immunity, arguing that the right to be free from lethal force against a non-threatening pet was not “clearly established” at the time of the shooting. Qualified immunity is a real defense, and it has been used successfully in some police misconduct cases. The counter: the Ninth Circuit and other federal courts have recognized for years that the killing of a companion animal can violate the Fourth Amendment. The right is clearly established. The question is not whether the right exists; it is whether the officers’ conduct violated it under the specific facts of this case. A qualified immunity motion is decided by the court, not the jury, but the evidence that defeats it is the same evidence that wins the case at trial — the body-worn camera footage, the necropsy, the canine behaviorist’s analysis.
Play 4: The “Aggressive Dog” Narrative. The officers will claim that Jameson was charging, that they feared for their safety, and that lethal force was the only option. The LAPD may release a statement characterizing the dog as aggressive, even before the body-worn camera footage is public. The counter: the neighbor cellphone video, the owner’s son’s account, the canine behaviorist’s expert analysis, the necropsy findings. A dog in a hallway wearing a Knicks jersey, surrounded by family members, is not a dog that was about to attack. The City’s narrative will be tested against the physical evidence.
Play 5: The Social Media and Surveillance Monitoring. The City and its investigators will review the owner’s social media accounts, public statements, and any videos the owner has posted. Anything that can be used to suggest the owner is exaggerating, or that Jameson had behavioral issues, will be used. The counter: the owner should refrain from posting about the case on social media. Anything said publicly can be twisted, taken out of context, or used to impeach later testimony. This is not a suggestion to be silent. It is a suggestion to channel everything through counsel.
Damages You Can Recover — Beyond the Market Value of the Dog
The damages available in a case like this extend well beyond the market value of Jameson. The legal system has limitations on what it can compensate, but within those limitations, the categories of recovery are broader than most families realize.
Economic Damages. These are the out-of-pocket costs: veterinary bills (if Jameson received any care before passing), the cost of the necropsy, burial or cremation expenses, the cost of any counseling the owner has sought as a result of the trauma, and the market value of the dog. For a mixed-breed family dog, the market value is low, but it is not zero, and it must be claimed.
Intrinsic Value Damages. California courts have recognized that the value of a companion animal to its owner can exceed the market value, and that a jury may award damages for the actual loss of the animal’s companionship, affection, and utility. Intrinsic value is not a precise calculation — it is what a jury decides the animal was worth to this family, in light of the years of companionship, the daily routines, and the role the animal played in the household. The Knicks jersey is evidence. The memorial in the hallway is evidence. The years of photos and videos are evidence. A jury that sees what Jameson meant to this family will understand that his value was not measured in dollars.
Emotional Distress Damages. California allows recovery for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) where the defendant’s conduct was extreme and outrageous, and the plaintiff suffered severe emotional harm. The witnessing of a companion animal’s violent death — in one’s own home, in one’s own hallway, in front of one’s own eyes — is the kind of trauma that can support an IIED claim. The standard is high: the conduct must be more than merely negligent or even reckless. It must be extreme and outrageous to the point that it exceeds the bounds of decency. The use of lethal force against a family dog during a celebration, when non-lethal options were available, may meet that standard.
Bane Act Statutory Damages. The Bane Act (Civil Code § 52.1) provides for statutory damages, the precise amount of which depends on the current statutory language and judicial interpretation. The statute also mandates an award of attorney fees to a prevailing plaintiff. The fee-shifting provision is often the most significant component of the Bane Act’s value, because it allows counsel to take the case without requiring the family to pay hourly fees, and it ensures that the lawyers who take on police misconduct cases can be compensated for the time and risk involved.
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Damages. Federal civil rights claims under § 1983 allow recovery of compensatory damages (economic and non-economic) and, in appropriate cases, punitive damages against the individual officers. Punitive damages are designed to punish and deter, and they are available when the officers’ conduct was motivated by evil intent or involved a reckless or callous indifference to the constitutional rights of the plaintiff. The facts of the Canoga Park case — the celebratory context, the residential hallway, the energetic dog in a jersey — may support a punitive damages claim if the evidence shows that the officers acted with the kind of disregard for Jameson’s life and the owner’s rights that the Constitution was designed to prevent.
What This Case Is Worth — An Honest Assessment
We are not in the business of promising results. The value of any case depends on the facts, the evidence, the jurisdiction, and the jury. But we can give you an honest range based on the type of case this is, the legal claims available, and what we have seen in similar matters.
The property value of Jameson is low — likely a few hundred to a few thousand dollars. A case based solely on that property value would not justify the cost of litigation, and an insurance-style adjuster would offer exactly that amount and call it reasonable.
But this is not a case based solely on property value. The Bane Act claim, the § 1983 claim, the IIED claim, and the intrinsic value argument together create a case that can be worth substantially more. In our assessment, cases with these characteristics — a high-profile incident, egregious facts, strong evidence of unnecessary force, and the emotional impact of witnessing the death — typically resolve in the range of $75,000 to $500,000 or more, depending on the strength of the evidence and the conduct of the defendants. The high end of the range reflects cases where the body-worn camera footage clearly shows unnecessary force, where the IIED claim is strong, and where the Bane Act’s statutory and fee provisions come into play.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. The range we have given is an honest assessment of the case type, not a prediction of what your case will settle for. What we can say is this: the City of Los Angeles knows what these cases cost when the evidence is bad for the officers. The body-worn camera footage will be released within 45 days under AB 748. What it shows will determine the value of the case more than anything else we can do.
How We Build This Case — The Proof Story
Here is how a case like this is actually built, from the first day you call to the resolution of the claim.
Week One: Preservation and Evidence Lockdown. The preservation letter goes out the day you call. It demands that the City, the LAPD, and any other potential defendants preserve all evidence related to the incident — body-worn camera footage, 911 audio, dispatch logs, officer training records, internal affairs reports, and any other documents or recordings. The letter creates a legal record that any destruction of evidence after the date of the letter will be met with sanctions and potentially an independent tort claim for spoliation.
If Jameson has not yet been buried or cremated, we arrange for an independent veterinary necropsy. The necropsy is performed by a veterinary pathologist who can testify to bullet trajectory, distance, and the dog’s position at the time of the shooting. The findings are documented in a written report that becomes part of the evidence in the case.
We also contact witnesses — the neighbor who called 911, other neighbors who may have heard or seen the incident, the owner’s son, and anyone else with relevant information. We obtain written statements while memories are fresh, and we preserve any cellphone videos or other recordings.
Weeks Two Through Six: The Government Claim. We draft and file the Government Claim with the City of Los Angeles Claims Board. The claim identifies the date, place, and circumstances of the loss, the legal basis for the claim, and the amount of damages sought. The Claims Board has 45 days to act. If the Board rejects the claim or fails to act within 45 days, we have six months to file suit.
Days 45 Through 90: Body-Worn Camera Footage. Under AB 748, the LAPD is required to release the body-worn camera footage within 45 days of the incident. If the footage is not released, we file a motion in court to compel its release. The footage is the single most important piece of evidence in the case. It shows what the officers saw, what they did, and what Jameson did in the moments before the shooting.
Once the footage is in hand, we retain a canine behaviorist — an expert who can analyze the dog’s body language in the footage and testify to whether the dog was charging, attacking, or merely energetic. The behaviorist’s report becomes another piece of the evidence that supports the claim.
Months Three Through Six: Filing the Lawsuit. If the Government Claim is denied, or if the 45-day period expires without action, we file a lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court (for state-law claims) or in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (for § 1983 claims). The complaint names the City of Los Angeles, the individual officers (when their names are known), and potentially the LAPD as an entity for the Monell claim.
Months Six Through Eighteen: Discovery. Discovery is where the case is built. We serve requests for production of documents on the City, seeking the officers’ training records, prior use-of-force complaints, Internal Affairs reports, CAD logs, and any other documents that bear on the officers’ conduct and the City’s policies. We take depositions of the officers, the dispatchers, the 911 caller, and the City’s witnesses. We retain expert witnesses — the veterinary pathologist, the canine behaviorist, a use-of-force expert — who will testify at trial if the case does not settle.
Resolution. Most civil rights cases settle before trial. The City of Los Angeles knows what a jury will do with footage of an energetic family dog being shot in a hallway during a celebration. The settlement value is driven by the strength of the evidence, the skill of the lawyers, and the willingness of the City to take the case to trial. We prepare every case as if it will go to trial, because that is what makes the City take the settlement seriously.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is a dog considered property in California?
Yes, California law classifies dogs as personal property under provisions like Civil Code § 1840. This means the legal system measures the “value” of a dog in market terms. However, California courts have recognized that a dog can have “intrinsic value” to its owner beyond market price, and federal courts have held that killing a dog can violate the Fourth Amendment. The property classification is a starting point, not a ceiling on what you can recover.
How long do I have to file a claim against the City of Los Angeles?
Under the California Tort Claims Act, Government Code § 911.2, you must file a Government Claim with the City within six months of the incident. For the June 13, 2026 Canoga Park shooting, the deadline is December 13, 2026. After the claim is filed, the City has 45 days to act. If the claim is denied, or if 45 days pass without action, you have six months from the date of rejection (or the expiration of the 45-day period) to file a lawsuit. Missing the six-month deadline can bar your claim entirely.
What is the Bane Act and how does it help me?
The Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code § 52.1, allows you to sue anyone — including a police officer — who “interferes by threat, intimidation, or coercion” with your constitutional rights. In a case involving the killing of a dog during a police response, the Bane Act allows you to recover statutory damages and, critically, attorney fees. The fee-shifting provision is what makes it possible for families with limited resources to hire counsel in these cases. Recent amendments to the statute provide for a minimum recovery amount, the precise figure depending on judicial interpretation of the current language.
Can I sue the individual LAPD officers, or only the City?
You can sue both. The City of Los Angeles is liable under California Government Code § 815.2 for the conduct of officers acting within the scope of their employment. The individual officers are personally liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for constitutional violations, and under the Bane Act and state tort law for intentional torts. The individual officers may raise qualified immunity as a defense, arguing that the constitutional right was not clearly established. We address qualified immunity in the playbook section above.
What damages can I recover for the death of my dog?
You can recover economic damages (the market value of the dog, veterinary and burial costs, counseling expenses), intrinsic value damages (the actual value of the dog to your family beyond market price), emotional distress damages (under an IIED theory or as part of the Bane Act and § 1983 claims), and in appropriate cases, punitive damages against the individual officers. The Bane Act and § 1983 also provide for attorney fees, which can be a significant component of the recovery.
What should I do if LAPD Internal Affairs wants to interview me?
Decline the interview until counsel is present. Internal Affairs interviews are not friendly conversations. They are recorded, and the recordings can be used to lock you into a version of events before you have had the chance to review all the evidence. You have a constitutional right to remain silent and a constitutional right to counsel. Exercise both. We will arrange to provide a written statement through counsel, on your terms, at a time of your choosing.
How quickly will the body-worn camera footage be released?
Under California AB 748, the LAPD is required to release body-worn camera footage of officer-involved shootings within 45 days of the incident, unless release would substantially interfere with an active investigation. The 45-day window for the Canoga Park shooting expires in late July 2026. If the footage is not released, we can file a motion in court to compel its release. In the meantime, the footage is preserved — the LAPD is on notice of its obligation to retain it.
What is a Monell claim?
A Monell claim (from Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978)) is a claim against a municipality — in this case, the City of Los Angeles — for constitutional violations caused by the municipality’s policies, customs, or practices. A Monell claim requires showing that the City itself, through its policies or its failure to train or supervise officers, caused the constitutional violation. In a dog-shooting case, a Monell claim might allege that LAPD’s training on animal encounters is inadequate, or that the City has a custom of using lethal force against dogs in non-threatening situations. Monell claims are harder to win than claims against individual officers, but they reach the City’s treasury directly and can result in institutional change.
Can I afford a lawyer for a case like this?
Yes. We handle these cases on a contingency basis. There is no fee unless we win. The free consultation costs you nothing. The Bane Act and § 1983 fee-shifting provisions mean that, if we prevail, the defendants pay our attorney fees. The contingency arrangement is what makes it possible for families to pursue these claims without paying hourly legal fees out of pocket.
What if I already gave a statement to the police?
Do not panic. Statements given before counsel was involved are not automatically fatal to the case. They can be explained, contextualized, or limited in their use. Bring us everything you have — the statement, any recordings, any text messages with the police — and we will assess the impact and develop a strategy to address it. The most important thing is to stop giving statements and contact us as soon as possible.
How We Can Help — The Trial Team Behind This Page
This is the work we do. Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC — has been fighting for families against insurance companies, corporations, and government entities for more than 27 years. Our managing partner, Ralph Manginello, has tried cases in federal court and state courtrooms across the country, including against the kind of institutional defendants who believe their size makes them untouchable. Ralph built this firm on the idea that people in crisis deserve someone who picks up the phone.
Our associate attorney, Lupe Peña, spent years inside a national insurance defense firm before crossing to the plaintiff’s side. Lupe knows how claims handlers think, how they evaluate cases, and how they decide what to offer and when. That knowledge is not theoretical. It is the kind of insight that comes from sitting on the other side of the table and watching the playbook run. Lupe serves families fully in Spanish.
Government claims, civil rights litigation, and police misconduct cases are not new territory for our team. We understand the California Tort Claims Act, the Bane Act, § 1983 claims, and the Monell framework. We understand the LAPD’s policies and the City’s defense strategy. And we understand that the family whose dog was killed in Canoga Park is not fighting for a piece of property. They are fighting for the memory of a dog who wore a Knicks jersey and was part of a celebration. The law has a way to help them do that. We built this page to explain how.
The consultation is free. There is no fee unless we win. We serve families in English and in Spanish. If you are ready to talk, call us at 1-888-ATTY-911. If you would like to learn more about our work before you call, you can read about Ralph Manginello’s background and Lupe Peña’s experience, or visit our contact page to send a message. We also encourage you to explore our full practice areas to understand the range of cases we handle.
Jameson was not property. He was family. The law may call him property, but the law also gives you a way to fight for what he meant. The six-month clock is running. The body-worn camera footage is coming. And the City of Los Angeles will answer for what happened in that hallway on Jordan Avenue. Hablamos Español. 1-888-ATTY-911.
This page provides legal information about California police misconduct, civil rights claims, and government claims procedures. It is not legal advice for your specific case. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. Contacting the firm is free and confidential.