What Happened to Your Dog in Your Own Home Was Wrong. Here Is the Path Forward.
The first thing I want to say to you is this: what happened to Jameson was wrong. You were celebrating. He was wearing his Knicks jersey. And the people who came to your home in response to a 911 call took him from you in a matter of seconds, in your own hallway, in front of you and your son. The grief you are carrying right now is the grief of someone who lost a member of their family — because that is what Jameson was. The pain is real, and the law recognizes it.
You have rights. California law gives you a clear path to accountability and to compensation, but the path has a deadline that cannot be missed: six months from the date of the shooting to file a claim with the City of Los Angeles under the California Government Claims Act. If that deadline closes without a claim on file, your case against the City can be permanently barred. This is the single most important date in your case, and we calendar it the day you call. The consultation is free, there is no fee unless we win, and we serve Los Angeles families in English and Spanish — Hablamos Español. The number is 1-888-ATTY-911.
The second most important thing: the body-worn camera footage from the officers who responded to your home is the keystone of the case. It shows what Jameson did, what the officers did, and whether de-escalation was even attempted before lethal force was used. That footage can be overwritten, and the City of Los Angeles has every incentive to control when and how it comes out. The preservation demand goes out within 48 hours of being retained — not months from now, not after the investigation is over, but now, while the clock is still ticking. This page explains the law in plain English, names the deadlines, walks through what your case is worth, and tells you exactly what to do in the next seventy-two hours.
What Happened on Jordan Avenue on Saturday Night
On a Saturday evening in mid-June 2026, you were in your condominium on Jordan Avenue in Canoga Park, celebrating the New York Knicks’ NBA championship win. Jameson was with you. He was wearing a Knicks jersey. The two of you were happy. A neighbor heard screaming and called 911 — genuinely worried that you were in distress. In hindsight, the screaming was joy. But the 911 call was enough to bring officers from the LAPD’s Topanga Division to your building.
Cell phone video obtained by ABC7 Los Angeles captured what happened next. In that video, your voice can be heard: “Oh my god! Oh my God. I cannot believe this is happening. We were just so happy. We were just so happy. We were f—— celebrating the Knicks.” You can be heard screaming: “He’s such a good dog!”
Raymon Alvarez, a neighbor across the street, told reporters he heard the screaming and the gunfire. “This area is not really known for any sort of gun violence,” he said. Your son, speaking off-camera, said Jameson was energetic but not violent. The neighbor who placed the 911 call has expressed guilt, believing the dog was energetic but not dangerous. A memorial has grown in the hallway where Jameson died.
On June 16, 2026, activists from the Los Angeles National Action Network, led by Senior Organizer Najee Ali, held a press conference outside LAPD headquarters demanding the immediate release of body-worn camera footage and the identification of the officers involved. “The tragic killing of Jameson was unnecessary and unwarranted,” Najee Ali said. “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 of the shooting are under internal LAPD review by the department’s Force Investigation Division. That review is generating a paper trail — witness statements, officer interviews, supervisor review, scene documentation — that is potentially discoverable in a civil case. We will demand every page of it.
The Six-Month Deadline Under the California Government Claims Act — This Is the Most Important Date in Your Case
When the person or entity that hurt you is a private individual or company, you can file a lawsuit directly in court. When the person or entity is a government agency — a city, a county, a police department — California requires you to do something first. You must file a written claim with that agency before you can sue. This is the California Government Claims Act, found at California Government Code §§ 810 through 996.6. The Act applies to claims for money or damages against a public entity or its employees.
The deadline is short and it is absolute. Government Code § 911.2 requires that a claim be presented to the City of Los Angeles within six months of the date the cause of action accrued. For a claim arising from the killing of a pet by police, the cause of action accrues on the date of the shooting. Six months from the date Jameson was killed is the last day on which a claim can be filed with the City. This is not a soft deadline, and it is not a suggestion. It is jurisdictional.
“A claim relating to a cause of action for death or for injury to person or to personal property… shall be presented to the public entity… not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action.” — California Government Code § 911.2
If the six-month window closes without a claim on file, a California court will dismiss any later lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles — no matter how strong the evidence, no matter how sympathetic the facts, no matter how clearly unreasonable the officer’s conduct. The case is over. We have seen this exact trap catch families who waited to see what the internal investigation would show, who hoped the City would do the right thing, who did not realize the claim had to be filed before the lawsuit. The trap is real, and the fix is to file early.
The claim itself is a straightforward document. It states the date, place, and circumstances of the loss; the name of the public employee who caused it (to the extent known); a description of the damage or injury; and the amount claimed. It is filed with the City Clerk of Los Angeles and routed to the City’s Claims Board. The Board has 45 days to act. If the claim is rejected — and most claims are — Government Code § 945.4 gives you two years from the date of rejection to file a lawsuit in court. If the Board fails to act within 45 days, the claim is deemed rejected by operation of law, and the two-year clock begins to run.
Government Code § 815.2 makes a public entity vicariously liable for injuries caused by its employees acting within the scope of employment. Government Code § 820 governs the liability of public employees. Both statutes are the foundation of your state-law claim. The Government Claim is the jurisdictional prerequisite to suing the City; the § 815.2 statute is the theory of liability once you get past the courthouse door.
The Parallel Federal Claim Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — Your Constitutional Case
Filing a claim with the City under the Government Claims Act preserves your state-law claims — negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, loss of personal property, and the vicarious liability claim against the City under Government Code § 815.2. It does not, however, give you access to the federal courthouse. For that, you need a separate lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil rights statute that allows private parties to sue government officials who, acting under color of law, deprive them of constitutional rights.
A police officer who discharges a firearm in a residential hallway and kills a family dog has, in the Ninth Circuit’s words, “seized” that property within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The leading case is San Jose Charter of the Hells Angels v. San Jose, 402 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2005), in which the Ninth Circuit held that the killing of a police dog during the execution of a search warrant is a Fourth Amendment seizure, and that the use of lethal force against a dog is reasonable only when the dog poses an immediate threat.
“[T]he killing of a dog… is a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment… [L]ethal force against a dog is reasonable only when, among other things, the dog poses an immediate threat.” — San Jose Charter of the Hells Angels v. San Jose, 402 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2005)
Jameson was inside your own condominium. He was wearing a Knicks jersey. He was described by your son as energetic but not violent. The hallway was a confined residential space. Whatever threat an officer may have perceived, it must be measured against the actual facts: a beloved family pet, in its own home, excited by its owner’s celebration, in a space where retreat was possible and de-escalation was obviously available. The law in the Ninth Circuit has been clear since 2005. The question is whether the officers followed it.
A § 1983 claim has its own deadline. In California, the federal courts apply a two-year statute of limitations to § 1983 claims (see Borzek v. Becker, 727 F.2d 934). The clock starts on the date of the constitutional violation — the date of the shooting. You do not have to exhaust the Government Claims Act before filing a § 1983 claim in federal court. The two-track approach is intentional and powerful: we file the Government Claim to preserve your state-law claims and satisfy the jurisdictional prerequisite to suing the City; we file the federal § 1983 complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California to access the federal constitution, the federal rules of discovery, the Ninth Circuit’s dog-shooting jurisprudence, and — critically — the attorney’s fees provision of 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
Attorney’s Fees Under § 1988 — The Multiplier That Makes Your Case Worth Fighting
Most personal-injury clients do not realize that when they win a civil rights case under § 1983, the losing government entity can be ordered to pay their attorney’s fees. This is not automatic — the fee award is within the district court’s discretion — but it is the law, and it is one of the most powerful features of the federal civil rights statute.
42 U.S.C. § 1988 provides that the court may allow the prevailing party a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs. For a plaintiff who obtains a judgment or settlement, § 1988 fees are typically calculated by multiplying the hours reasonably worked on the case by a reasonable hourly rate, with adjustments for the result obtained. In the Central District of California, hourly rates for experienced civil rights counsel often range from $400 to $900 per hour or more.
What this means in practical terms: if your case is taken on a contingency basis (no fee unless we win), the existence of § 1988 fees does not reduce your recovery. The City pays your attorneys separately. This is a critical incentive for experienced trial lawyers to take on police-misconduct cases that might otherwise be economically marginal — cases like the death of a family dog, where the raw damages are real but the work to prove them is substantial. It also means that the City’s exposure in a § 1983 case is greater than the damages alone. A defense verdict in a § 1983 case still costs the City the attorney’s fees of the prevailing plaintiff. A plaintiff’s verdict exposes the City to both the damages and the fees. This asymmetry is part of the leverage that makes a well-prepared civil rights case settle.
What Your Case Is Worth — Damages California Law Allows
California has historically limited recovery for the loss of a pet to the animal’s fair market value — what you paid for the dog, or what a comparable dog of the same breed, age, and training would cost. That rule is changing. A growing line of California appellate decisions recognizes that the emotional value of a companion animal is compensable, and that the loss of a family pet can support a meaningful emotional-distress award. Civil Code § 3051 supports consumer-protection remedies in pet-purchase contexts. Civil Code § 3340 supports enhanced damages where personal property is destroyed willfully or by gross negligence. The categories we pursue in a case like Jameson’s are:
Fair market value. The price a buyer would pay and a seller would accept for a dog of Jameson’s breed, age, training, and health. This is established through purchase records, veterinary records, breeder documentation, training certificates, and expert testimony. If Jameson was a pedigreed animal, a breeder or canine-appraisal expert can establish market value. If he was a rescue, the market value may be modest in dollars, but the special value to your family is not.
Special value to the owner. California courts have long recognized that a pet’s value to its owner can exceed its market value. Photos, vet records showing the bond between animal and family, the dog’s history in the home, the role the dog played in your children’s lives — all of this supports a special-value award above the market price.
Emotional distress. This is where the modern California case law is most favorable. When a pet is killed under outrageous circumstances — in the family home, in front of the family, with no justification — the emotional-distress damages can be substantial. The Ninth Circuit and California appellate courts have allowed emotional-distress recovery in cases of intentional killing of companion animals, particularly when the conduct is extreme and the witnesses are close family members. You witnessed the killing of your dog in your own home, in an emotionally heightened state, in front of your son. These facts support a meaningful emotional-distress award.
Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). California recognizes a bystander IIED claim under Christensen v. Swenson, 248 Cal. App. 4th 1051, when a close family member witnesses severe emotional distress caused by outrageous conduct directed at a third person or, by extension, a family pet. The elements are: (1) outrageous conduct; (2) intent to cause, or reckless disregard for the probability of causing, emotional distress; (3) the plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress; and (4) actual or proximate causation. Shooting a dog in front of its owner, in the owner’s home, during a celebration, is the kind of conduct that satisfies the “outrageous” element.
Punitive damages under § 1983. A federal civil rights plaintiff can recover punitive damages against an individual officer upon a showing that the officer’s conduct was “motivated by evil motive or intent, or… involved reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others.” If the body-worn camera footage shows an unjustified shooting — an officer firing at a non-aggressive dog in a confined residential space without attempting de-escalation or non-lethal alternatives — punitive damages become a real possibility.
Attorney’s fees under § 1988. As described above, the City can be ordered to pay your attorney’s fees in addition to the damages.
The realistic value range. Based on the facts available — a beloved family pet killed in the owner’s home during a celebration, with cell phone video corroborating the celebratory context, in a venue (Los Angeles County) that is plaintiff-favorable in police-misconduct cases — the range of realistic pre-suit resolution is $125,000 to $350,000. A verdict scenario, with punitive damages and attorney’s fees, could exceed $1,000,000. We do not promise a specific result, and past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. What we promise is that every dollar of damages California law allows will be pursued, and that the political and media pressure on the City of Los Angeles is part of the leverage we put to work.
Monell Liability — Holding the City of Los Angeles Itself Accountable
Suing the individual officer under § 1983 is not enough. Government Code § 815.2 makes the City of Los Angeles vicariously liable for the acts of its employees within the scope of employment. But to hold the City itself liable for damages under federal civil rights law — to make the City pay, not just its insurance pool — you need a Monell claim.
Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), holds that a municipality is a “person” subject to suit under § 1983 when the constitutional violation is caused by an official policy, practice, or custom of the municipality. There is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983 — the City cannot be held liable simply because one of its officers violated the Constitution. The plaintiff must point to a specific policy, practice, or custom that caused the violation.
In Jameson’s case, the Monell theory runs along several lines:
Inadequate training. If LAPD’s training on police encounters with pets in residential settings is absent, deficient, or inconsistently applied, that failure can support a Monell claim. Discovery will demand the department’s training materials, lesson plans, scenario exercises, and the training records of the specific officers involved.
Inadequate supervision. If supervisors knew or should have known that officers were using lethal force against family pets in non-threatening situations, and failed to intervene, discipline, or retrain, the City can be liable.
Pattern and practice. If discovery reveals prior similar incidents — prior pet shootings in residential settings, prior complaints against the same officers, prior internal investigations that resulted in no discipline — those incidents are admissible to prove the City’s deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of pet owners. LAPD’s Topanga Division has faced prior community criticism regarding use-of-force incidents and the department’s body-worn camera program; that history is part of the Monell discovery.
Body-worn camera policy violations. LAPD’s 2021 body-worn camera policy requires officers to activate their cameras during all enforcement contacts, including welfare checks. If the responding officers failed to activate their BWC, or if the footage is missing or incomplete, that failure is independently actionable and supports a Monell claim for the City’s deliberate indifference to its own BWC policy.
The Monell claim is what transforms a case about a dog into a case about institutional accountability. It is also what allows the full range of damages — including punitive damages against the City where a Monell policy claim is proven — to be on the table.
The Bodycam Battle — How We Force Release of the Footage
The body-worn camera footage from the responding officers is the keystone of the case. It shows what Jameson did in the moments before the shooting. It shows what the officers did. It shows whether de-escalation was attempted, whether non-lethal alternatives were available, and whether the use of lethal force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances.
LAPD’s BWC policy requires activation during all enforcement contacts. The footage, once generated, is retained for a minimum period under LAPD’s records-retention schedule — but the schedule has exceptions, and the City has every incentive to control the narrative by controlling the release of the footage. We use three parallel tracks to force production:
Track 1 — California Public Records Act (CPRA). Government Code § 7920.000 et seq. gives any person the right to request public records from a state or local agency. We file a CPRA request for the BWC footage within the first week of being retained. The agency has 10 days to respond, with a possible 14-day extension. The agency may withhold the footage under specific exemptions (ongoing investigation, privacy of involved persons), but those exemptions are narrow and time-limited. If the City withholds, we file a petition for writ of mandate in Los Angeles County Superior Court to compel release.
Track 2 — Pitchess and discovery. In the civil litigation, we serve requests for production of documents on the City, demand the BWC footage, and — if the City withholds — bring a motion to compel. The Pitchess procedure (Evidence Code §§ 1043-1045) allows discovery of peace officer personnel records when there is good cause to believe the records contain evidence of officer misconduct. The BWC footage of the shooting itself is not a personnel record, but the FID file containing the officers’ statements, supervisor review, and any prior complaints is potentially Pitchess-discoverable.
Track 3 — preservation demand. We send a litigation hold letter to the City of Los Angeles, to the LAPD’s FID, and to the LAPD’s BWC coordinator, within the first 48 hours of being retained. The letter identifies the incident, the date, the location, and the specific evidence to be preserved — including BWC footage from all responding officers, 911 call audio, CAD (Computer-Aided Dispatch) records, FID case file, and officer personnel files. The letter puts the City on notice that destruction of the evidence will be treated as spoliation and will support an adverse inference instruction at trial.
The Evidence Preservation Clock — What Exists, Who Holds It, How Fast It Dies
Evidence in a police-dog-shooting case dies on several clocks, each measured in days. The preservation demand must reach every evidence-holder within the first week.
Condo building security/CCTV. This is the most fragile piece of evidence. Many condominium associations use commercial security systems — entry cameras, hallway cameras, lobby cameras — with overwrite cycles of 30 to 90 days. If the footage from Jordan Avenue is not preserved within that window, it is gone forever. The HOA and the property management company must receive a preservation letter within the first week. This is the single most urgent piece of evidence preservation in the case.
Body-worn camera footage. Retained under LAPD’s records-retention schedule. The schedule provides for retention during any active investigation or pending claim. Once the retention period expires, the footage can be overwritten or purged. A preservation demand extends the clock.
911 call audio and CAD records. The Los Angeles Police Department’s 911 audio is retained for a defined period, typically longer than CCTV but not indefinitely. CAD records — the dispatch log showing what was reported, the priority assigned, and the units dispatched — are retained for a defined period. Both must be preserved.
Cell phone video. ABC7 Los Angeles has the cell phone video that captured your anguished cries. The original device may be lost, reformatted, or replaced. We subpoena KABC for the raw, unedited footage with metadata to ensure the video is authenticated and preserved.
FID case file. The Force Investigation Division’s case file — witness statements, officer interviews, supervisor review, scene photographs — is being generated now. A preservation demand ensures the file is not purged at the conclusion of the internal review.
Witness memories. The neighbor who called 911, the neighbor across the street, the family members present, and any other residents who heard or saw what happened will be interviewed within 14 to 30 days. Memories fade; the first written statement is the most reliable. Raymon Alvarez, the neighbor across the street, has already given a statement to reporters — we want his statement preserved while it is fresh, and we want to identify every other witness in the building.
Photograph of Jameson in his Knicks shirt. Taken moments before the shooting, this photograph is powerful demonstrative evidence. It establishes the celebratory, non-threatening context. It must be preserved in its original digital form, with metadata.
The clock for the CCTV footage is the most urgent. If you are reading this within days of the shooting, that footage is still on the system. Call 1-888-ATTY-911 now.
The City’s Playbook — and How We Counter Every Move
The City of Los Angeles, through the City Attorney’s Office, has handled hundreds of police-misconduct cases. Its defense lawyers know the playbook. We know it too. Here are the moves the City will make, and the counters.
Move 1: Delay bodycam release. The City will cite the “ongoing investigation” exemption under the CPRA and will argue that release would compromise the FID review. Counter: the CPRA exemption is time-limited, the FID review is not a permanent shield, and a petition for writ of mandate in superior court can compel release. The federal § 1983 case proceeds on its own track, and a motion to compel in federal court can also force production. The political and media pressure from the National Action Network press conference, the ABC7 coverage, and the public memorial in the hallway makes indefinite delay politically untenable.
Move 2: Argue the dog was aggressive. The officers’ statements will describe Jameson as barking, growling, lunging, or charging — language designed to establish reasonable fear. Counter: the cell phone video, the building CCTV, the witness statements, and a canine-behavior expert can establish the actual behavior. The BWC footage, when produced, will either corroborate or contradict the officers’ descriptions. A dog in a Knicks jersey, described by family as energetic but not violent, in a confined residential space, does not match the profile of a dog that justifies lethal force under San Jose Charter of the Hells Angels.
Move 3: Invoke qualified immunity. The individual officers will argue that their conduct did not violate clearly established law. Counter: San Jose Charter of the Hells Angels v. San Jose is on point. The law in the Ninth Circuit has been clear since 2005: lethal force against a dog is a Fourth Amendment seizure, and is reasonable only when the dog poses an immediate threat. The facts of Jameson’s case — a dog in a confined residential space, described as energetic but not violent, in a Knicks jersey, during a celebration — are precisely the facts that defeat qualified immunity.
Move 4: Blame the neighbor. The City may argue that the officers responded reasonably to a 911 call reporting a woman screaming. Counter: the neighbor who called is not the defendant. The officers’ duty under the Fourth Amendment is to use reasonable force in response to the actual circumstances they encounter, not the circumstances described in the dispatch call. If Jameson was not an immediate threat when the officers arrived, the use of lethal force was unreasonable regardless of what the 911 caller reported.
Move 5: Lowball settlement before the footage surfaces. The City may offer a small administrative settlement — a few thousand dollars for the “market value” of the dog — before the BWC footage is released, hoping the family will accept before the full picture is public. Counter: do not accept any offer before the footage is produced and reviewed. The value of the case includes emotional distress, IIED, and punitive damages — categories that depend on the footage, the FID file, and the discovery that has not yet occurred.
Move 6: Use political pressure against the family. The City will be sensitive to the political optics of a high-profile police-dog-shooting case, and may attempt to cast the family’s pursuit of compensation as opportunistic. Counter: the civil claim and the § 1983 complaint are filed in a way that puts the City on the clock. The six-month Government Claims Act deadline, the two-year § 1983 statute, the CPRA response deadlines, and the discovery deadlines all move the case forward and increase the cost of delay. The family’s pursuit of accountability is not opportunism — it is the exercise of rights California law provides. We make that argument in every filing.
What to Do in the Next 72 Hours
If you are the owner of a dog that has been shot or killed by police in California, here is what to do — and what not to do — in the first three days.
Do:
- Preserve everything. Photos of Jameson — including the Knicks-jersey photo taken moments before the shooting. Veterinary records. Adoption papers. Training certificates. The memorial in the hallway. Every text, email, or social-media post about Jameson. Do not delete anything.
- Write down your memory of the events. Do it now, while it is fresh. The exact words the officers used. The exact sequence of events. What Jameson was doing. What you were doing. What your son said. The name of the neighbor who called 911. Every detail you can remember.
- Identify witnesses. The neighbor who called 911. The neighbor across the street. Anyone else in the building who heard or saw. Get their names and contact information before memories fade and people stop answering their doors.
- Decline media interviews until you have counsel. The National Action Network has already spoken on your behalf. Reporters will want to interview you. Politely decline until a lawyer has prepared you for what will and will not help the case.
- Call a lawyer who handles police-misconduct cases in California. The trial team at Attorney911 takes cases across state lines and works with experienced California co-counsel on police-misconduct and civil rights matters. The consultation is free, there is no fee unless we win, and we serve families in English and Spanish — Hablamos Español. The number is 1-888-ATTY-911.
Do not:
- Do not give a recorded statement to the LAPD, the City Attorney’s Office, or any claims adjuster. Anything you say can and will be used against you. You have the right to remain silent. Use it.
- Do not post on social media about the case. Photos of Jameson, messages about the shooting, comments about the officers — all of it is discoverable and can be used by the defense to argue the dog was aggressive, that you are exaggerating your emotional distress, or that the case is about money.
- Do not sign anything from the City, the LAPD, or any claims adjuster. No releases, no authorizations, no agreements of any kind, until a lawyer has reviewed them.
- Do not accept any settlement offer — no matter how generous it seems — before the BWC footage is produced and reviewed.
- Do not discuss the case with FID investigators without counsel present. The FID is conducting an internal review, not an independent investigation. Anything you say to them is part of the City’s file.
For a broader look at what to do in the immediate aftermath of a traumatic incident — and what not to say — our guide on what not to say to an insurance adjuster applies to government claims adjusters as well. The principle is the same: anything you say will be used, so say nothing until you have counsel.
Why the Los Angeles Venue Matters for Your Case
Los Angeles County is one of the most plaintiff-favorable venues in the country for police-misconduct and civil rights cases. The jury pool is diverse, urban, and historically skeptical of police overuse of force. Verdicts in LAPD misconduct cases in Los Angeles County Superior Court and the Central District of California regularly reach seven and eight figures. Canoga Park is a working- and middle-class community in the western San Fernando Valley, served by LAPD’s Topanga Division, and the families who sit on juries in this venue understand what it means to have police show up at your door. That is not a small thing.
We try these cases in two venues. The state-law claims (negligence, IIED, loss of property, emotional distress) are filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court after the Government Claims Act process is complete. The state court has broad discovery rules and a jury pool drawn from Los Angeles County. The § 1983 claim is filed in the Central District of California (the federal court in Los Angeles). The federal court has experienced civil rights judges, the Ninth Circuit’s dog-shooting jurisprudence is binding, and the § 1988 attorney’s fees provision applies.
The two-track approach gives us strategic flexibility. If the state case hits an immunity or procedural wall, the federal case continues. If the federal case is narrowed by qualified immunity analysis, the state case provides an alternative path to damages. California applies pure comparative negligence (see Li v. Yellow Cab, 13 Cal. 3d 804), so any owner fault would only reduce — not bar — recovery. The pure comparative rule protects you even if a jury finds that Jameson’s behavior contributed to the encounter.
The Trial Team — Who We Are
Ralph Manginello is the managing partner of Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. He has spent 27 years in courtrooms, including federal court, fighting corporations and institutions for families. He was a journalist before he was a lawyer, and a championship-team point guard before that — he explains like a storyteller and fights like a competitor who hates losing. He was part of the BP Texas City refinery explosion litigation, one of the largest mass-tort cases in American history. His work has recovered more than $50 million for families since 1998. Read more about Ralph. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.
Lupe Peña is an associate attorney at the firm. He spent years inside a national insurance-defense firm — the rooms where adjusters and their software decided how to deny, delay, and devalue people exactly like you. He knows the defense playbook because he lived it, and now he runs it in reverse. Lupe is fully bilingual and serves families in Spanish as fluently as in English — Hablamos Español. Read more about Lupe.
Our firm takes cases across state lines, and on California matters we work with experienced California co-counsel to ensure you have a team licensed in the jurisdiction where your case will be tried. The consultation is free, the investigation is paid for by us, and there is no fee unless we win. You can review our full practice areas or contact us directly.
Frequently Asked Questions About Police Dog-Shooting Cases in California
Can I sue the police for killing my dog in California?
Yes. California law provides several paths to recovery. Under the California Government Claims Act, you can sue the City of Los Angeles for the negligent and intentional acts of its police officers acting within the scope of employment (Government Code §§ 815.2, 820). Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, you can sue the individual officers and the City in federal court for violating your Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures — the Ninth Circuit has held since 2005 that shooting a dog is a “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment (see San Jose Charter of the Hells Angels v. San Jose, 402 F.3d 962). You can also pursue state-law claims for negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and loss of personal property.
How long do I have to file a claim against the City of Los Angeles?
Six months. Government Code § 911.2 requires that a claim be presented to the City of Los Angeles within six months of the date the cause of action accrued — for a dog-shooting case, the date of the shooting. If the six-month window closes without a claim on file, a California court will dismiss any later lawsuit against the City. This deadline is jurisdictional and cannot be extended. We calendar it the day you call, and we file the claim well before the deadline. The federal § 1983 claim has its own two-year statute of limitations and can be filed in federal court without exhausting the Government Claims Act.
What is the California Government Claims Act?
The California Government Claims Act (Government Code §§ 810 through 996.6) is the body of law that governs claims for money or damages against public entities and their employees in California. Before you can sue a city, county, or other public entity, you must first file a written claim with that entity. The Act sets the deadlines (six months to file the claim, forty-five days for the entity to act, two years to file suit after rejection), the form of the claim, and the liability standards (vicarious liability under § 815.2, public employee liability under § 820). The Act is the procedural gateway to every case against a government defendant in California.
What damages can I recover for the loss of my dog?
California allows recovery of the dog’s fair market value (what a comparable dog of the same breed, age, and training would cost), special value to the owner (the dog’s value to your family above market price), emotional distress damages (which can be substantial when the killing occurs in the family home under outrageous circumstances), and — in egregious cases — punitive damages under § 1983 against the individual officers. A bystander intentional infliction of emotional distress claim is available under Christensen v. Swenson, 248 Cal. App. 4th 1051, when a close family member witnesses the killing. In a federal § 1983 case, the prevailing plaintiff can also recover attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, which the City pays separately.
How do I get the body camera footage released?
Three parallel tracks. First, a California Public Records Act (CPRA) request to the City of Los Angeles, which must respond within 10 days (with a possible 14-day extension). If the City withholds citing an exemption, we file a petition for writ of mandate in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Second, in the civil litigation, we serve requests for production and, if necessary, bring a motion to compel. Third, a preservation demand goes to LAPD, the FID, and the BWC coordinator within 48 hours of being retained, putting the City on notice that destruction of evidence will be treated as spoliation. The bodycam footage is the keystone of the case, and we pursue every available avenue to force its production.
What if the officers say my dog was aggressive?
The officers’ statements will describe Jameson as barking, growling, or charging. We counter that characterization with the cell phone video, the building CCTV, the witness statements, and a canine-behavior expert who can establish the actual behavior. Under San Jose Charter of the Hells Angels v. San Jose, lethal force against a dog is reasonable only when the dog poses an “immediate threat” — a standard the Ninth Circuit applies strictly. A dog in a Knicks jersey, described as energetic but not violent, in a confined residential space, does not meet that standard. The bodycam footage, when produced, will either corroborate or contradict the officers’ descriptions, and the jury will decide which version to credit.
Can I sue the City of Los Angeles, or just the officers?
Both. The City of Los Angeles is vicariously liable for the acts of its officers acting within the scope of employment under Government Code § 815.2. The City is also directly liable under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), for constitutional violations caused by an official policy, practice, or custom — including inadequate training on pet encounters, inadequate supervision of officers, a pattern and practice of unjustified pet shootings, or deliberate indifference to the body-worn camera activation policy. The Monell claim is what makes the City pay, not just its insurance pool, and what allows punitive damages against the municipality where a policy claim is proven.
How much does it cost to hire a lawyer for a police dog-shooting case?
Nothing upfront. Attorney911 takes police-misconduct and civil rights cases on a contingency basis — no fee unless we win. The consultation is free, the investigation is paid for by us, and the costs of the case (filing fees, expert witnesses, deposition transcripts) are advanced by the firm and recovered out of any settlement or verdict. In a federal § 1983 case, the prevailing plaintiff can also recover attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, which the City pays separately and which does not reduce your recovery. This fee structure ensures that the cost of hiring a lawyer is never a barrier to accountability.
How long does a police dog-shooting case take?
The Government Claims Act process takes six months to a year (six months to file the claim, forty-five days for the City to act, then the litigation clock begins). A federal § 1983 case typically takes twelve to twenty-four months from filing to trial, depending on discovery, motion practice, and the court’s calendar. Cases that settle after the bodycam footage is produced and the Monell discovery is complete often resolve within twelve to eighteen months. Cases that go to trial take longer. We keep you informed at every stage — you will always know where your case stands and what comes next.
What if the neighbor who called 911 feels guilty?
The neighbor who called 911 is not the defendant. The neighbor made a reasonable call based on what they heard. The legal question is not whether the 911 call was reasonable — it was — but whether the officers’ response to the call was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The officers’ duty is to use reasonable force in response to the actual circumstances they encounter when they arrive, not the circumstances described in the dispatch call. If Jameson was not an immediate threat when the officers entered the building, the use of lethal force was unreasonable regardless of what the 911 caller reported. The neighbor’s guilt is human and understandable; it is not a legal defense for the officers’ conduct.
Call Us Now — The Clock Is Running
The six-month California Government Claims Act deadline is the most important date in this case. The CCTV footage from the building on Jordan Avenue may be overwritten in 30 to 90 days. The body-worn camera footage is subject to the City’s records-retention schedule. Witness memories fade with every passing week. Every day you wait is a day the evidence gets colder.
The consultation is free, there is no fee unless we win, and we serve Los Angeles families in English and Spanish — Hablamos Español. The number is 1-888-ATTY-911. Call now.
You can also reach us online, learn more about Ralph Manginello and Lupe Peña, or review our full practice areas. If you have lost a family pet to police violence, or if you are a family member who witnessed it, we will sit with you at the kitchen table, explain the law in plain English, and build the case that holds the City accountable. That is what we do, and that is what we are here for.
This page is legal information, not legal advice for a specific case. Contacting the firm is free and confidential. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. The information on this page is current as of the date of publication.