The Family on Jordan Avenue, and the Deadline They May Not Know About
What happened in a Canoga Park condo on a Saturday night in mid-June 2026 should not have happened. A woman was in her own home, celebrating the New York Knicks’ NBA championship with her dog Jameson — who, by every account, was wearing a Knicks jersey at the time. A neighbor heard her scream and called 911, genuinely believing something was wrong. Los Angeles Police Department officers responded to the building on Jordan Avenue. What happened next is the subject of an internal review and a public demand for transparency. The cell phone video captured by a witness and obtained by ABC LA carries the owner’s anguished voice, and one line that tells most of the story: “We were f—— celebrating the Knicks.”
We are so sorry for what happened to Jameson, and to the woman whose home this was. We are sorry for the son, the neighbor who called 911 and now feels guilty, and the family watching a memorial grow in the hallway where their dog died. What we want to do on this page is give you the truth about what the law allows, and the truth about how short the clock is — because the most dangerous thing in this case is not what the City of Los Angeles will say in public. The most dangerous thing is the date on the calendar.
Here is the first protection, given to you for free: California law gives the owner of a dog killed by a public employee in California six months from the date of the death to file a written claim with the City of Los Angeles before any lawsuit can be filed. The statute is the California Government Claims Act, Gov. Code §§ 810 et seq., and the six-month deadline is in Gov. Code § 911.2. That deadline is jurisdictional — it is not a suggestion, it is not extendable for sympathy, and if it is missed the case is gone. A federal civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 has a two-year statute of limitations, but the state-law claim against the City itself dies in six months. Do not let the calendar run out on a case that has real money value and real accountability potential.
What Happened on Jordan Avenue on Saturday Night
The facts in the public record are these. On a Saturday in mid-June 2026, LAPD officers responded to a 911 call reporting a woman screaming inside a condo on Jordan Avenue in Canoga Park, in the western San Fernando Valley. The neighborhood is residential, lined with condominiums and multi-family housing — the kind of low-crime, suburban-feel block where neighbors recognize each other, which is corroborated by neighbor Raymon Alvarez’s statement to ABC LA that the area is “not really known for any sort of gun violence.” Officers with LAPD’s Topanga Division made entry into the building. In the hallway of the building, a family dog named Jameson was fatally shot by officers.
The woman was not in distress. She had been celebrating the Knicks’ NBA championship victory with her dog, who was wearing a Knicks jersey at the time — a photograph taken moments before the shooting shows Jameson in the shirt. The cell phone video obtained by ABC LA captures the woman’s screams immediately after the shooting, including her statement that they had been celebrating. A neighbor across the street, Raymon Alvarez, told reporters he heard the screaming while heading out for a walk, and that when he returned he heard gunfire — and that he did not at first think the sounds were gunshots because the area is not known for gun violence. The neighbor who placed the 911 call has expressed guilt, telling reporters off-camera that they sincerely thought their neighbor was in trouble. A memorial has been growing in the hallway where neighbors watched Jameson die.
On Tuesday, June 16, 2026, activists from the Los Angeles National Action Network, led by Senior Organizer Najee Ali, held a press conference outside LAPD headquarters. Najee Ali’s statement to the press: “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 public deserves transparency, and the family deserves answers.” The circumstances that led up to the police shooting are under LAPD internal review.
The activists’ demand is real and we support it. The body-worn camera footage, the names of the officers, and a full accounting of what happened in that hallway should be released. But a press conference is not a claim. A press conference does not stop the six-month clock. A press conference does not preserve the hallway CCTV before it overwrites. And a press conference does not put money in the hands of the family whose dog was killed and whose home this was. The bodycam is the keystone evidence, but it is keystone evidence for a case — a case the family must file, in the right court, inside the right deadline, with the right defendants named. We are the firm that does that work. This page is what we want the family, and any family in a similar situation, to read before the calendar does the City’s work for it.
Your Rights as a Dog Owner When Police Kill Your Pet in California
Pets are property in California — that is the historical legal rule. But historical rules have been bending under the weight of how families actually live with their animals, and when a public employee kills a family dog in a residential hallway, the law has more to say than the old property label suggests. The rights we are talking about come from three different places in the law, and the family on Jordan Avenue has all three.
First, the California Government Claims Act (Gov. Code §§ 810 et seq.) creates a cause of action against a public entity for injuries caused by its employees acting within the scope of employment. Gov. Code § 815.2 imposes direct liability on the City of Los Angeles for acts of LAPD officers within the scope of their employment. The procedure is strict: a written claim must be filed with the City of Los Angeles within six months of the date the injury occurred — in this case, the date Jameson died. If the claim is rejected, the family has two years from the date of rejection to file suit. Failure to file the claim is an absolute bar to the lawsuit. This is the rail the case runs on, and it is the one the City hopes the family never learns about.
Second, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 creates a federal cause of action against any person acting under color of state law who deprives another of a constitutional right. The constitutional right at issue here is the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure, because — and this is the controlling Ninth Circuit law — the shooting of a dog during execution of a police response is a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The federal claim is brought in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, runs on a two-year statute of limitations, and — critically — allows the family to recover their attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 if they prevail. The fee-shifting provision is the part that changes the economics of the case for both the family and the lawyers: the federal claim is worth more than the verdict number alone.
Third, the Monell doctrine (Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978)) holds that a municipality is itself liable under § 1983 when execution of its policy or custom inflicts the constitutional injury. The standard is deliberate indifference to constitutional rights — meaning the City knew, or should have known, that its officers were using lethal force against family pets in residential settings and failed to train, supervise, or discipline. This is the rail that reaches the City of Los Angeles itself, not just the individual officers. The City cannot hide behind the officers’ uniforms; the City is on the stand for what it trained and what it tolerated.
The California Government Claims Act: The 6-Month Deadline That Kills the Case If You Miss It
This is the section of the page that matters most, so we are going to take it slowly. The California Government Claims Act is the procedural rail that every state-law claim against a public entity runs on in California. The Act is codified at Gov. Code §§ 810 through 996.6. Its most important feature for our purposes is the claim-presentation requirement in Gov. Code § 911.2, which says that no suit may be brought against a public entity — and that includes the City of Los Angeles — until a written claim has been presented to the entity and has been acted upon, or deemed rejected, by the entity. The same statute gives the public entity a fixed window to act on the claim, after which the claim is deemed rejected.
The deadline to present the claim is six months from the date the cause of action accrues. For a property damage or personal injury claim, accrual is the date of the injury. For the family on Jordan Avenue, the injury occurred on the Saturday in mid-June 2026 when Jameson was shot. The six-month clock started that Saturday. The clock is jurisdictional, which means a court has no power to extend it for sympathy, for good cause, for a busy lawyer, or for a difficult case. The leading California cases are clear on this: a late-filed claim is an absolute bar to the lawsuit. The Supreme Court of California has said the rule is to be strictly construed.
What goes in the claim? Gov. Code § 910 specifies the contents: the claimant’s name and address, the date, place, and circumstances of the occurrence (Jordan Avenue, Canoga Park, in front of the responding officers, on a Saturday in mid-June 2026), the name of the public employee causing the injury if known, a general description of the injury or damage (the death of a family dog, the emotional harm to the owner who witnessed it, the loss of companionship), and the amount of the claim if it totals a specified dollar figure. The claim is filed with the City Clerk of Los Angeles. The City then has 45 days to act on the claim. If the City does not act within 45 days, the claim is deemed rejected, and the family has two years from the deemed-rejection date to file suit in Los Angeles County Superior Court. If the City rejects the claim in writing, the family has six months from the date the rejection is deposited in the mail to file suit. Those are the rails the case runs on, and they do not bend.
The trap is in the language. A family that does not know about the Government Claims Act will, in good faith, wait for the criminal investigation, wait for the bodycam to be released publicly, wait for the activists’ demands to be answered, and wait for the City to apologize. The City will not apologize. The City will not release the bodycam on the family’s schedule. The criminal investigation will run for months. By the time the family finds a lawyer, the calendar will be inside the deadline — and the lawyer will have to file a hurried claim with no time to build the case properly. The City’s strategy is to wait you out, and the Government Claims Act is the tool they wait you out with. The counter is simple: file the claim now, even if you have not decided whether to sue. The filing preserves the right; it does not commit you to suit. We can build the case in the months that follow. We cannot build the case if the claim is one day late.
42 U.S.C. § 1983: The Federal Civil Rights Claim That Puts Your Case in Federal Court
The federal civil rights claim is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a cause of action against any person who, acting under color of state law, deprives another of a constitutional right. The constitutional right at issue is the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable seizures. The Supreme Court has been clear since Tennessee v. Garner (1985) and Graham v. Connor (1989) that the use of force by a police officer is a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes, and is judged by an objective reasonableness standard — would a reasonable officer in the same situation have used the same force.
Until 2005, the question of whether the shooting of a dog was itself a Fourth Amendment seizure was open in the federal circuits. The Ninth Circuit answered the question in San Jose Charter of the Hells Angels v. San Jose, 402 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2005), and the answer was yes. The Hells Angels chapter sued the City of San Jose after officers shot and killed their dog during the execution of a search warrant. The Ninth Circuit held that the shooting of the dog was a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and that the objective reasonableness analysis of Graham v. Connor applied. The court was explicit: the killing of a family pet by a police officer, in the course of executing a police function, is not exempt from the Fourth Amendment. The Constitution protects the family pet as part of the sanctity of the home, and lethal force against a non-threatening animal in a residential space is presumptively unreasonable.
The case the family on Jordan Avenue has, on the facts as we know them, is strong under Hells Angels. The encounter was in a residential hallway, in a low-crime neighborhood, in response to a 911 call about a screaming woman — not a domestic violence call, not a burglary-in-progress call, not a shots-fired call. The dog was inside a building, not at large in a public space. The dog was, by every contemporary account, energetic but not violent. There is no public record evidence that the dog was charging officers, that officers were bitten, that officers were trapped, or that a human life was at imminent risk. If the bodycam shows otherwise, the case is harder. If the bodycam shows what the contemporaneous accounts suggest — a non-aggressive family pet in a confined space — the objective reasonableness analysis is going to be very hard for the City to win.
The § 1983 claim has three additional features that make it powerful. First, it is brought in federal court, in the Central District of California, and the federal discovery rules (FRCP 26 through 37) are friendlier to plaintiffs than California discovery in several respects — broader document requests, faster expert disclosure, and an active mediation program. Second, the federal court can entertain Monell claims against the City of Los Angeles itself, and federal courts in Los Angeles have a robust body of Monell case law. Third — and this is the part that changes the economics of the case for everyone — the federal claim carries attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. A prevailing plaintiff in a § 1983 case recovers reasonable attorney’s fees from the defendant. The fees are awarded in addition to the damages. The practical effect is that the family is more likely to find a lawyer willing to take the case on a contingency basis, the lawyer has the resources to litigate the case to verdict, and the City has to add the cost of the family’s lawyers to the verdict number when it is deciding whether to settle.
San Jose Charter of the Hells Angels v. San Jose: Why the Law Is on Your Side
The Hells Angels decision deserves its own section, because it is the case that made these cases winnable. Before Hells Angels, a police department could argue that the shooting of a dog was an unfortunate byproduct of a police action and not itself a constitutional violation. After Hells Angels, the shooting of a dog during a police encounter is its own constitutional claim, analyzed on its own facts, and judged on its own objective reasonableness. The Ninth Circuit’s reasoning is the reasoning a jury in Los Angeles will hear.
The court began with the text of the Fourth Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Pets, the court held, fall within the protection of the home as part of the homeowner’s effects. The killing of a pet inside the curtilage of a home, or inside a residential building, is a seizure of that effect. The seizure must be reasonable.
The court then applied the Graham v. Connor objective reasonableness test. The question is not whether the officer subjectively believed the dog was a threat, but whether a reasonable officer, with the same training and facing the same circumstances, would have used lethal force. The court identified several factors that bear on reasonableness: was the dog confined to a limited space, or running at large? Was the dog showing aggressive behavior — baring teeth, growling, charging, biting? Did the officers have a non-lethal alternative available? Did the officers have a place to retreat? Was the encounter in a public space where a dog at large could pose a continuing risk, or in a private space where the dog could be contained?
The case on Jordan Avenue is, on the public record facts, a textbook Hells Angels case. The dog was inside a residential building. The dog was, by every account, energetic but not violent. The 911 call was a welfare check, not a violent-crime-in-progress. The responding officers had non-lethal alternatives available — OC spray, a baton, a taser, containment in the apartment, retreat and call for an animal control specialist. None of those facts is contested at this stage of the public record. The City’s defense will be that the officers faced an imminent threat we have not yet seen, and the bodycam will either support that defense or undermine it. Either way, the legal framework is the family-friendly framework of Hells Angels, and the burden is on the City to prove reasonableness, not on the family to prove unreasonableness.
One more piece of the Hells Angels framework matters here. The Ninth Circuit recognized that the emotional harm of losing a family pet is real, compensable, and constitutionally cognizable. The court did not treat the dog as a piece of furniture. The court treated the dog as a member of the family whose loss causes real constitutional harm. That is the jury instruction we will ask the federal court to give in Los Angeles.
Monell Liability: How We Sue the City of Los Angeles Itself
Suing the individual officers is part of the case. Suing the City of Los Angeles is the other part, and it is the part the activists’ press conference is really about. The individual officers have qualified immunity — a defense that protects them from personal liability unless they violated a clearly established constitutional right. Qualified immunity is a serious defense, and it can knock out a case against an individual officer if the law was not clearly established in similar circumstances. The City of Los Angeles has no qualified immunity. The City is liable for its own policies, customs, and failures to train, and that is where the case becomes a City case, not just an officers’ case.
The framework is Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), and the line of cases that has followed it. A municipality is liable under § 1983 when execution of its policy or custom inflicts the constitutional injury. The plaintiff has to identify the policy or custom, show that it was the moving force behind the constitutional violation, and show that the policymaker acted with deliberate indifference to the constitutional risk. Three categories of Monell claims recur in police-misconduct cases: (1) a formal written policy; (2) a widespread practice or custom that is so persistent and widespread that it constitutes a policy by default; and (3) a failure to train, supervise, or discipline that amounts to deliberate indifference.
The case on Jordan Avenue will likely be built on the third category — a failure to train, supervise, or discipline officers on encounters with family pets in residential settings. The failure-to-train theory has three elements: the City’s training program was inadequate; the inadequacy was the cause of the constitutional injury; and the City was deliberately indifferent to the risk — meaning the City knew, or should have known, that the inadequate training would cause constitutional violations, and the City failed to act. The proof comes from the City’s own training records, the City’s prior incidents, and the City’s disciplinary history.
This is where the discovery fight will be. The City will resist producing training records, prior BWC of similar incidents, and the disciplinary history. The resistance is overcome through a combination of Pitchess motions in state court (which give criminal defendants and civil plaintiffs access to peace officer personnel records when relevant to the case) and federal FRCP 34 requests in the § 1983 case. LAPD’s body-worn camera policy, in place since 2021, requires activation during all enforcement contacts, and the records of prior BWC activations are within the scope of a properly framed request. LAPD’s Topanga Division has been the subject of prior community criticism regarding use-of-force and body-worn camera transparency — that is the public-record evidence we will use to support a deliberate-indifference argument at the Monell stage.
“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 public deserves transparency, and the family deserves answers.” — Najee Ali, Senior Organizer, Los Angeles National Action Network, press conference outside LAPD headquarters, June 16, 2026.
Activists’ demands are one part of accountability. The legal claim under Monell is the other part — the part that puts the City on the stand, that makes the City pay, and that forces the systemic change the activists are asking for. Both are needed. We do the legal part.
What Your Case Is Worth: Damages in a California Police Dog-Shooting Case
Damages in a police dog-shooting case break into three categories: economic, non-economic, and (against the individual officers) punitive. The economic category includes the fair market value of the dog — the breed value, the age, the training, the pedigree. For a dog with no special training and no show record, the market value may be modest, in the range of a few hundred to a few thousand dollars. For a dog with training certifications, a documented pedigree, show wins, or working-dog credentials, the market value can be considerably higher. The family should pull adoption papers, training certificates, vet records, and any photos or videos that establish Jameson’s character. Each document is a number on the verdict sheet.
The non-economic category is where this case is strong. The owner witnessed the killing of her pet in her own home, in the middle of an emotionally heightened celebratory state, with her son present, with neighbors hearing it through the walls. The cell phone video already obtained by ABC LA captures the moment with terrible clarity. The owner’s screams — “We were f—— celebrating the Knicks” — are the contemporaneous record of an emotional harm that is hard to overstate. A Los Angeles County jury in a police-misconduct case is going to feel that harm in their own homes, because most Los Angeles County jurors have had a dog, and most Los Angeles County jurors can imagine what it would be like to watch a dog they loved be shot in their own hallway. California’s evolving recognition of loss-of-companionship damages for pets — the Plotnik line of cases, and the modern appellate decisions affirming special-value and emotional-distress damages in egregious pet-killing cases — supports a meaningful non-economic award. Civil Code § 3051 (the consumer protection context for pet value) and Civil Code § 3340 (which supports enhancement where conduct is intentional) are available statutes.
Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) is available on a bystander theory under Christensen v. Swenson, 248 Cal. App. 4th 1051. The elements are outrageous conduct, intent to cause or reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress, the plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress, and there is a causal connection. The shooting of a family pet in the owner’s home, in the middle of a celebration, is the kind of case the IIED doctrine was built for.
Punitive damages are available against the individual officers under § 1983 on a showing of reckless or callous indifference to a constitutional right. The standard is high — it requires proof that the officer knew of, or showed reckless disregard for, the risk that his conduct violated the Constitution. The facts the public record supports — a non-aggressive dog in a residential hallway, with non-lethal alternatives available, in response to a welfare check — are facts that would support a punitive damages instruction. Punitive damages are not available against the City under Monell in the same way they are available against individual officers, but a Monell finding does support enhanced compensatory damages and a fee award under § 1988.
The realistic exposure for the City of Los Angeles on this fact pattern, with the BWC and the FID file in the record, with the cell phone video corroborating the celebratory context, with Monell liability supported by Topanga Division’s prior use-of-force history, and with § 1988 fees in play, is a six-figure pre-suit resolution. A verdict scenario with Monell liability, punitive damages against the individual officers, and a full § 1988 fee award can push into seven figures. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes — no lawyer can promise a specific number — but the architecture of the case is favorable.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” — U.S. Const., amend. IV. The Ninth Circuit has held that this protection extends to the family pet inside the home. San Jose Charter of the Hells Angels v. San Jose, 402 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2005).
The Bodycam Footage: Keystone Evidence, and How We Force Its Release
Let us be clear about what the body-worn camera footage is and is not. The bodycam footage is the keystone evidence of the case — it will show, in real time and from the officers’ own perspective, what happened in the hallway. The footage will show whether the dog was aggressive, whether officers gave warnings, whether they had non-lethal options available, whether they attempted de-escalation, and whether the use of lethal force was proportional. The footage is the single most important piece of evidence in the case, and it is the piece of evidence the City of Los Angeles is most motivated to control the release of.
The activists’ demand for bodycam release is a public-relations demand. The legal claim for bodycam release is a discovery demand, and it works differently. The California Public Records Act (Gov. Code §§ 7920.000 et seq.) gives the public a right to records of public agencies, and the bodycam footage is a record of the LAPD’s actions. CPRA requests for bodycam footage are routinely filed within 7 days of the incident. The City will not produce on the CPRA timeline — the City will claim an exemption, will claim an active investigation, will claim officer privacy, will claim any number of things — and the family will then file a motion to compel in state court, which is where the CPRA enforcement action lives.
The federal case is faster. The § 1983 complaint in the Central District triggers federal discovery under FRCP 26 through 37, and a properly-framed FRCP 34 request for bodycam footage, 911 audio, CAD records, the FID case file, and officer personnel records is enforceable on a federal timeline, not a City of Los Angeles timeline. The federal court can order production, can impose sanctions for failure to produce, and can — in egregious cases — draw an adverse inference that the missing evidence would have supported the plaintiff’s version of events. The federal case is also the case in which a Monell claim against the City can be litigated, and the bodycam is the foundational evidence of the Monell claim.
LAPD’s 2021 body-worn camera policy requires activation during all enforcement contacts. Failure to activate is itself a violation of LAPD policy, creates an evidentiary spoliation issue, and supports a deliberate-indifference theory under Monell. If the officers failed to activate their cameras, the family has a powerful argument that the City’s training on BWC activation is inadequate, and the inadequacy caused the constitutional injury. If the officers activated their cameras and the footage is missing or has been deleted, the argument is stronger. Either way, the BWC issue is part of the case, not separate from it.
The Evidence Clock: What to Preserve, Who Holds It, and How Fast It Dies
The clock is running on every piece of evidence in this case. The bodycam footage is the most obvious clock, but it is not the only one. Below is the full inventory of evidence in the case, who holds it, and how fast it can die. None of this is theoretical — every item on this list has a retention period, and after the retention period, deletion is legal. Our job is to send a preservation demand to each holder before the retention period runs.
- LAPD body-worn camera footage from all responding officers. Holder: LAPD’s Records and Identification Division, on the FID server. Retention: variable, but subject to deletion after a defined period; preservation demand required immediately. This is the keystone evidence.
- 911 call audio and CAD (Computer-Aided Dispatch) records. Holder: LAPD’s Communications Division, on the 911 system. Retention: CAD records typically 1 to 2 years; 911 audio retention variable. Preservation demand required within days. The CAD records establish the response priority — was this dispatched as a welfare check, a disturbance, or a violent-crime-in-progress — and the dispatch language goes to reasonableness.
- Cell phone video already obtained by KABC. Holder: KABC (ABC7 Los Angeles), with the original device in the hands of the witness. The video is in the public record but the original device is evidence and can be lost or reformatted. Subpoena to KABC for the raw video; preservation request to the witness’s family for the device.
- Condo building security/CCTV footage (hallway, lobby, entry). Holder: HOA and property management company for the Jordan Avenue building. Retention: 30 to 90 days on most commercial and residential systems. Preservation demand required within days. Third-party video is independent of LAPD’s own cameras and shows the officers’ approach, the dog’s behavior, and the moment of the shooting.
- LAPD FID (Force Investigation Division) case file. Holder: LAPD’s Force Investigation Division. Retention: the file is being generated now; statements, supervisor reviews, and officer interviews are part of the file. Preservation demand required to prevent the file from being characterized as ‘work product’ and withheld.
- Photograph of Jameson wearing the Knicks shirt. Holder: the family. This is the iconic demonstrative evidence. Secure immediately — multiple high-resolution copies in multiple locations, with metadata preserved.
- Veterinary records, adoption papers, training certificates, and family photos. Holder: the family and the veterinarian. Establish fair market value, special value, and Jameson’s character as a non-aggressive family member. Standard discovery, but gather within 60 days.
- Witness statements from Raymon Alvarez and other residents. Holder: the witnesses themselves. Memories fade within 14 to 30 days. Recorded statements preferred; written statements better than nothing.
- Officer personnel files, training records, and prior BWC of similar encounters. Holder: LAPD’s Personnel Division, accessed via Pitchess motion in state court and FRCP 34 in federal court. Supports Monell, negligent training, and pattern-or-practice claims. Filed within court deadlines after suit is commenced.
The preservation letters go out the day the family calls us. The California Public Records Act request goes out within 7 days. The Government Claim is filed with the City Clerk of Los Angeles within 30 to 45 days, well inside the 6-month deadline. The § 1983 complaint is filed in the Central District of California in parallel. None of this can wait. Every day the letters are delayed is a day the evidence has to die on its own.
The City Attorney’s Playbook: The Plays They Run, and How We Counter Each One
Our associate Lupe Peña spent years inside a national insurance-defense firm — the rooms where claims are priced, where reserves are set, and where the playbook is written for the carriers on the other side. The City Attorney’s Office handling the Jameson case is running the same playbook. The names change. The defenses do not. Below are the plays we expect, with the counter to each.
Play 1: Wait out the 6-month Government Claims Act deadline. This is the play. The City Attorney’s Office knows the claim deadline is jurisdictional. The longer the family waits — the more time spent on the criminal investigation, on the bodycam release, on the activists’ press conferences — the closer the calendar gets to the deadline, and the more leverage the City has to insist on a low settlement or to have the case dismissed outright. The counter: file the Government Claim now, even if you have not yet decided to sue. The filing preserves the right. We can build the case in the months that follow.
Play 2: Bodycam silence. The City will not release the bodycam on the family’s schedule. The City will wait for the criminal investigation to be far enough along that the release can be framed inside the City’s narrative, and then the City will release the bodycam with a press conference and a written statement that the officers’ actions were reasonable under the circumstances. The counter: subpoena the bodycam in the federal case under FRCP 34, and seek a court order for production on a federal timeline. The federal case does not wait for the City.
Play 3: The sympathy play. The City will express public condolences for Jameson’s death, will call the incident ‘tragic,’ will say the loss of any pet is heartbreaking, and will say nothing about responsibility. The City’s public sympathy is not a settlement. The City’s public sympathy is the prelude to a private denial. The counter: make the City’s conduct part of the complaint, under § 1983 and Monell, so the City’s private denial is in the public record of the case.
Play 4: The ‘reasonable officer’ defense. The officers will testify, and the City’s expert will opine, that the use of lethal force was objectively reasonable under Graham v. Connor — that the officers feared for their safety, that the dog was acting aggressively, that the officers had no non-lethal alternative, that the encounter was a high-stress split-second decision. The counter: retain a use-of-force expert (former LAPD or major metro) and a forensic canine-behavior expert to interpret the BWC and to establish that lethal force was disproportionate. The use-of-force expert will sit on the stand and tell the jury what the officers could have done instead, and the canine-behavior expert will tell the jury what the dog was actually doing in the seconds before the shot.
Play 5: Character attacks on the owner and the dog. The City will explore the dog’s history — was Jameson a pit-bull type, off-leash, unrestrained, with a history of aggressive behavior? Was the owner a credible witness, or was the celebration of the Knicks’ championship a cover for something else? The counter: preserve the photo of Jameson in his Knicks shirt, the vet records, the adoption papers, the training certificates, the witness statements from Raymon Alvarez and other residents who knew Jameson and the area. The contemporary record is the counter to character attacks.
Play 6: Indemnification and qualified immunity. The City will argue the officers were acting within the scope of their employment, so the City is the only proper defendant for damages (which is true), and that the officers have qualified immunity from personal liability (which requires a clearly established constitutional right). Qualified immunity is a serious defense, but it is overcome when the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the violation. The counter: name the officers in their individual capacities and plead the Hells Angels case, which was decided in 2005, more than twenty years before the shooting. The right was clearly established.
Our job is to see the play before it is run and to have the counter ready. This is what we do.
Steps to Take in the Next 30 Days: A Chronological Roadmap
For the family on Jordan Avenue, and for any family in a similar situation, the next 30 days are the most important days of the case. The bodycam, the hallway CCTV, the witness memories, the FID file — every piece of evidence is perishable, and the calendar is the City’s friend. Below is the chronological roadmap, in plain English, of what we do in the first 30 days after the family calls us.
Day 1 (the day you call). The preservation letter goes out — to LAPD’s FID, to the LAPD Records and Identification Division, to the City Attorney’s Office, and to the HOA / property management company for the Jordan Avenue building. The letter is a formal written demand that all evidence related to the incident be preserved, including bodycam footage, 911 audio, CAD records, FID case file, hallway CCTV, lobby CCTV, and any other surveillance video. The letter also notifies the City of the family’s intent to file a Government Claim and a § 1983 complaint. We also send a preservation request to the witness who took the cell phone video, and we identify and contact Raymon Alvarez and other witnesses for recorded statements.
Days 2 through 7. The California Public Records Act (CPRA) request goes out — to LAPD for bodycam, 911 audio, CAD records, the FID case file, the dispatch tape, and any related incident reports. The CPRA response window is 10 days for straightforward requests, longer for requests requiring redaction. We also send a litigation hold letter to the City of Los Angeles through the City Attorney’s Office, putting the City on formal notice of the claim and the preservation obligation.
Days 7 through 14. We collect the family’s documents — adoption papers, vet records, training certificates, photos, the Knicks-shirt photo, and any videos. We secure multiple high-resolution copies in multiple locations, with metadata preserved. We obtain recorded statements from Raymon Alvarez, the neighbor who called 911, and any other witnesses who saw or heard the incident. We retain a use-of-force expert (former LAPD or major metro) and a forensic canine-behavior expert on a consulting basis, to begin evaluating the case as soon as the bodycam is available.
Days 14 through 30. The Government Claim is drafted and filed with the City Clerk of Los Angeles. The claim is filed under Gov. Code § 910, naming the City of Los Angeles, identifying the officers if known, stating the date, place, and circumstances of the occurrence (Jordan Avenue, Canoga Park, in the hallway of the building, on a Saturday in mid-June 2026), and stating the damages claimed (fair market value, special value, emotional distress, loss of companionship, and the total amount). The claim filing is the most important procedural step in the case, and it is filed well before the 6-month deadline. A parallel § 1983 complaint is prepared for filing in the Central District of California, with the Government Claim filing as the trigger for the federal court’s supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.
Beyond day 30. The City has 45 days to act on the Government Claim. If the City does not act, the claim is deemed rejected, and the family has two years from the deemed-rejection date to file suit. If the City rejects the claim in writing, the family has six months from the date the rejection is deposited in the mail to file suit. The federal case is filed on the same timeline. Discovery proceeds in both cases. Mediation is set in the federal case under the local rules. The case is built toward resolution or verdict on the strongest possible record.
The roadmap is not a list of things to do. The roadmap is a list of things to do now, because the City is not waiting and the calendar is not waiting.
How the Case Is Actually Built: From Preservation Demand to Verdict
Most people have never been inside a civil rights case against a police department. Most people do not know what a case actually looks like, what a case actually costs, or what a case actually produces. We are going to walk you through the case as it is actually built, from the preservation demand on day one to the verdict at the end, so that you know what you are getting into and so that no one can tell you the case is something it is not.
The first phase is the preservation and demand phase, which runs from day 1 to about day 60. The preservation letters go out, the CPRA request is filed, the Government Claim is drafted and filed, the family documents are collected, the witness statements are recorded, and the experts are retained. This phase is about freezing the evidence and putting the City on formal notice. The City is now operating under a litigation hold, and any deletion of evidence after the hold is spoliation, which is sanctionable in court and which can give rise to an adverse-inference instruction at trial.
The second phase is the filing and responsive phase, which runs from about day 30 to about day 180. The § 1983 complaint is filed in the Central District of California, naming the officers in their individual capacities and the City of Los Angeles under Monell. The City responds with a motion to dismiss, which is denied (or partially denied) because the complaint states a plausible claim for relief under Hells Angels and Monell. Discovery opens. The City produces the bodycam, the 911 audio, the CAD records, and (after Pitchess and FRCP 34 fights) the officer personnel files and the FID case file. The experts review the bodycam and prepare their initial reports.
The third phase is the discovery and expert phase, which runs from about day 180 to about day 365. Depositions are taken — the responding officers, the FID investigators, the 911 dispatcher, the supervising officers, the use-of-force expert on behalf of the City. The experts for the family (use-of-force and canine-behavior) prepare their final reports and are deposed by the City. Mediation is set in the federal case under the local rules. A Stowers-equivalent demand is framed once the BWC production clearly shows unjustified force. Settlement discussions proceed in parallel with the deposition schedule.
The fourth phase is the resolution or trial phase, which runs from about day 365 to the end. If the case settles — and many police-misconduct cases settle, especially in Los Angeles County where the jury composition favors plaintiffs in civil rights cases — the settlement is documented in a written agreement that includes a confidentiality clause (which the family can decide whether to accept) and a dismissal of the case. If the case does not settle, the case is set for trial, the jury is selected (voir dire focused on pet ownership, attitudes toward police, and Los Angeles County’s well-documented pro-plaintiff jury composition in civil rights cases), the case is tried, and the jury returns a verdict.
The case as actually built is not glamorous. It is letters, deadlines, depositions, expert reports, motions, and a courtroom. It is also the only mechanism in the American legal system that puts a price on a constitutional violation and that makes the City of Los Angeles pay for the conduct of its officers. The case is how the family gets answers the press conference cannot deliver, and how the family gets the kind of accountability the City will not give voluntarily.
If you want to understand what the case timeline looks like in plain terms and how the case phases break down, our practice areas page has a general walkthrough of the civil case process. For the specific overlap with personal injury, the wrongful death practice area covers the loss-of-companion analysis that runs in parallel to this case. For the emotional-injury component of the case, our PTSD payout after a car accident video covers the kind of psychiatric injury damages that are available in a bystander case like this one.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I sue the LAPD for shooting my dog?
Yes. In California, you can sue the City of Los Angeles under the California Government Claims Act (Gov. Code §§ 810 et seq.) and the individual officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in federal court. The Ninth Circuit has held, in San Jose Charter of the Hells Angels v. San Jose, 402 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2005), that the shooting of a dog during execution of a police response is a Fourth Amendment seizure, and that the use of lethal force is judged by the objective reasonableness standard of Graham v. Connor. The case must be brought in the right court, on the right timeline, with the right defendants named.
How long do I have to file a claim?
Six months from the date of the injury to file a Government Claim with the City of Los Angeles under Gov. Code § 911.2. The deadline is jurisdictional and cannot be extended. A federal civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 has a two-year statute of limitations. If the Government Claim is rejected, the family has two years to file suit under Gov. Code § 945.4. The 6-month state deadline is the one to watch first — it is the one the City hopes you miss.
How much is a police dog-shooting case worth in California?
The case value depends on the facts. The economic component is the dog’s fair market value (breed, age, training, pedigree). The non-economic component is the emotional distress, loss of companionship, and (potentially) intentional infliction of emotional distress. A realistic pre-suit resolution on a sympathetic fact pattern with a non-aggressive dog in a residential hallway runs in the range of $125,000 to $350,000. A verdict scenario with Monell liability against the City and punitive damages against the individual officers can push past $400,000 and into seven figures, plus attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.
Is a dog just property in California?
Historically, yes — California has long treated pets as property for damages purposes. But the rule has been bending. The Plotnik line of cases, Civil Code § 3051 (consumer protection context for pet value), Civil Code § 3340, and modern appellate decisions affirming special-value and emotional-distress damages in egregious pet-killing cases have expanded the remedies available. In a police-misconduct case, the constitutional framework of the Fourth Amendment treats the family pet as part of the sanctity of the home, and the damages analysis runs on the same architecture as any other constitutional injury.
Can I get the bodycam footage?
Yes, but not on the City’s schedule. A California Public Records Act request (Gov. Code §§ 7920.000 et seq.) is filed within 7 days of the incident, and the City is required to respond within 10 days (for straightforward requests) or longer with redaction. If the City does not produce, the family files a motion to compel in state court. In the federal case, a properly-framed FRCP 34 request for bodycam is enforceable on a federal timeline, and a federal court can order production and impose sanctions for failure to produce.
What if the police say the dog was aggressive?
That is the City’s likely defense, and it is the bodycam that will prove or disprove it. The family retains a forensic canine-behavior expert to interpret the BWC and to establish Jameson’s behavior in the seconds before the shot. The contemporary record — the photo of Jameson in his Knicks shirt, the vet records, the witness statements from neighbors who knew Jameson — is the counter to the City’s narrative. The objective reasonableness standard of Graham v. Connor asks what a reasonable officer would have done, and a reasonable officer responding to a 911 call about a screaming woman in a low-crime residential building has non-lethal options available.
What about the activists’ demands and the District Attorney?
Activists’ demands for bodycam release and officer identification are part of public accountability — and we support them. But a press conference is not a claim, and an activist’s demand is not a lawsuit. The District Attorney’s office makes charging decisions on any criminal case; that is the DA’s call, not the family’s. The civil case is separate. The civil case is what puts money in the family’s hands and what makes the City of Los Angeles pay for the conduct of its officers. We do the civil part.
Do I have to go to court?
Most police-misconduct cases settle before trial. The realistic sequence is preservation → Government Claim → § 1983 complaint → discovery → mediation → resolution. Trial is the backup, not the default. The family does not have to make the trial decision at the outset; the family makes it as the case develops and as the bodycam evidence becomes clear. If the case settles on terms the family approves, there is no trial.
How long does a case like this take?
From the date the family calls to a pre-suit resolution typically runs 6 to 18 months, depending on the body’s cooperation, the City’s settlement posture, and the discovery schedule. From filing to verdict at trial typically runs 18 to 36 months. The case can be resolved earlier if the bodycam is produced quickly and the City’s settlement posture is reasonable, and can run longer if the City fights every motion and produces documents on a contested schedule.
What if I cannot afford a lawyer?
You do not pay us anything unless we win. The fee is a contingency fee — a percentage of the recovery — and the federal case adds attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 that are paid by the City if you prevail. The free consultation costs nothing, the representation costs nothing up front, and you owe us nothing if we do not recover. The financial barrier that keeps most families from filing a civil rights case is exactly what the contingency fee and § 1988 fees are designed to remove.
Can the neighbor who called 911 be sued?
No. The neighbor called 911 in good faith, on what they genuinely believed was an emergency, and the neighbor has expressed guilt about the outcome. The neighbor is not liable for the officers’ conduct, and a lawsuit against the neighbor would be both legally weak and morally wrong. The case runs against the City of Los Angeles and the individual officers, not against the neighbor who called for help.
Can I sue the individual officer personally?
Yes. The officers are named in their individual capacities in the federal § 1983 complaint. The officers have a qualified immunity defense, which is overcome when the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the violation. The Hells Angels case was decided in 2005, more than twenty years before this incident — the right was clearly established. Punitive damages are available against the officers personally under § 1983 on a showing of reckless or callous indifference to a constitutional right.
About Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC
Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC — is a trial firm built on a simple idea: people in a legal emergency deserve someone who picks up the phone now. Ralph Manginello founded the firm in 2001 after years in the courtroom as a plaintiffs’ trial lawyer. He has tried cases in state and federal court for more than 27 years, including refinery-explosion litigation arising from the BP Texas City disaster. Ralph is admitted to the State Bar of Texas (Bar Card #24007597) and to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. He is a former championship point guard and an award-winning journalist who explains the law the way a sharp friend would, not the way a law professor would.
Lupe Peña is a former insurance-defense attorney — he spent years inside a national defense firm, in the rooms where adjusters decided how to deny, delay, and devalue claims exactly like the one on Jordan Avenue. He knows how carriers code claims, how Colossus-style settlement software undervalues injuries, and how the playbook is written before the first demand letter is sent. He now sits on your side of the table. Lupe is a fluent Spanish speaker and serves families fully in Spanish. Hablamos Español.
The firm handles cases in multiple states. Because the firm is based in Texas and Ralph is admitted in Texas and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, California cases are prosecuted with experienced California-licensed co-counsel — the same model the firm uses to take cases in other jurisdictions. The co-counsel brings the California bar admission and the Los Angeles courtroom experience; the firm brings the trial strategy, the case-building playbook, and the resources to take on a city. The case is built in partnership, with the family as the client at the center.
For the case on Jordan Avenue, that means a lawyer admitted in the Central District of California and in the Los Angeles County courts is leading the daily litigation, with the firm’s full resources, case strategy, and trial team behind the case. The fee is contingency — you do not pay anything unless we win. The consultation is free. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes — we will tell you honestly what the case is worth and what it is not worth, and we will not promise a number we cannot deliver. The information on this page is legal information, not legal advice for your specific case — the advice comes in the consultation, where we sit down with you, learn the facts, and tell you what we would do if this were our family’s case.
The Call
If you are the family on Jordan Avenue, or if you are reading this in another Los Angeles neighborhood because a similar thing happened to you, the next step is the call. The call is free. The call is confidential. The call is 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The number is 1-888-ATTY-911. On the call, we will hear the facts, answer your questions about the 6-month Government Claims Act deadline and the 2-year federal statute of limitations, explain the bodycam preservation process, and tell you whether the case is one we can help with. We will not promise a number we cannot deliver. We will not run a sales pitch. We will tell you what the law allows and what the calendar permits, and we will do it in English or in Spanish — Hablamos Español. If we are the right firm for your case, we will say so. If we are not, we will tell you that too. Reach out to us today, because the preservation letters cannot wait, the bodycam is perishable, and the 6-month clock is already running.