You Were Celebrating. The Police Shot Your Dog. Now the Law Gives You a Path Forward — But the Clock Is Running.
It was Saturday night, June 13, 2026. The New York Knicks had just won the NBA championship, and you were doing what families do when their team wins — you screamed, you cheered, you celebrated. Your dog Jameson was right there with you, wearing his Knicks jersey, part of the joy. Then a neighbor heard the screaming and thought you were in trouble. They called 911. Officers from the LAPD Topanga Division arrived at your condominium on Jordan Avenue in Canoga Park. And within minutes, the celebration turned into the worst night of your life.
The officers encountered Jameson in the hallway of your own building. What happened next is on cell phone video: the sound of gunfire, and then your own voice screaming — “Oh my God! Oh my God! I cannot believe this is happening. I cannot believe this is happening. We were just so happy. We were just so happy. We were just celebrating the Knicks. We were f—— celebrating the Knicks.” Jameson was dead. Your family member — because that is what he was — was killed by police in his own home.
You are now standing at the center of a case that involves constitutional law, California civil rights statutes, a city government that will defend itself with every resource it has, and a clock that is already running. This page is written for you — and for every family in California whose companion animal has been killed by law enforcement. We are going to walk you through what the law actually says, what the LAPD’s own policies require, what evidence is disappearing right now, what the City will try to do in the next ninety days, and how we build a case that holds them accountable. The consultation is free, there is no fee unless we win, and we serve families in English and Spanish. Call 1-888-ATTY-911.
What Happened at Jordan Avenue — and Why the Legal Analysis Starts With the 911 Call
The facts as they are publicly known paint a picture that matters legally. A neighbor called 911 after hearing screaming from inside a condominium. The neighbor later said off-camera that they feel guilty for calling and sincerely thought their neighbor was in trouble. The call was classified as a welfare check — a check on a person’s well-being — not a report of a crime in progress, not a domestic violence call, not an armed suspect. The officers arrived at a residential building on Jordan Avenue in the West San Fernando Valley, a high-density neighborhood of multi-unit condominiums where sound travels through shared walls and hallways.
Witnesses, including the dog’s owner, told activists from the National Action Network that Jameson was energetic but not violent. The dog’s son confirmed his mother had been celebrating the Knicks’ championship win. A photo taken moments before the shooting shows Jameson wearing a Knicks shirt. Cell phone video captured the owner’s immediate distress, her screams, her words: “He’s such a good dog!” A neighbor across the street, Raymon Alvarez, described the screaming and then the gunfire, noting the area is not known for gun violence. A memorial is now growing in the hallway where neighbors watched Jameson die.
Why does the 911 characterization matter? Because the LAPD’s response protocols, its use-of-force continuum, and its policies for encountering animals are all calibrated to the nature of the call. A welfare check on a screaming woman in a residential building is among the lowest-threat calls an officer can receive. The encounter with a dog in a hallway is not a violent crime in progress. It is exactly the scenario that LAPD training — and California POST guidelines — specifically address, and the answer in those guidelines is almost never lethal force against a non-aggressive animal in a contained residential space.
Is a Dog “Just Property” in California? The Legal Classification That Shapes Everything
California law traditionally classifies pets as personal property. This classification has real consequences: if your dog were truly treated as a piece of furniture, your damages for the loss would be limited to the dog’s market value — often a few hundred dollars — plus any veterinary or burial expenses. For most families, that number is an insult. It reduces a decade or more of companionship, of a being who slept at the foot of the bed and greeted you at the door, to the price of a used appliance.
But California law is not as cold as the traditional label suggests. Federal courts, including the Ninth Circuit, and California appellate courts have established that killing a companion animal can constitute a seizure of property under the Fourth Amendment — and that the owner may recover for the intrinsic value of the animal beyond mere market replacement cost. The law is beginning to recognize what every dog owner already knows: a companion animal is not interchangeable. The specific dog matters. The relationship matters. The loss is not fungible.
This evolution is the legal foundation under everything that follows. When we say your family member was killed, the law is starting to catch up with that language — not perfectly, not completely, but enough to build a case that goes beyond the dog’s purchase price. And when we layer the Bane Act on top of it — which we will get to in a moment — the legal landscape shifts dramatically in your favor.
The Fourth Amendment: Killing Your Dog Is a Seizure, and It Must Be Reasonable
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Federal courts have established that companion animals qualify as “effects” for purposes of this protection. When an officer kills a dog, the officer has seized that property. The question is whether the seizure was reasonable under the circumstances.
Reasonableness is measured against what a reasonable officer, with the same training and facing the same facts, would have done. It is not measured against the officer’s own subjective fear in the moment. It is an objective standard. And when the facts are: a welfare check at a residential condominium, a dog in the hallway, no report of the dog having bitten anyone, no history of violence, and the owner describing the animal as “energetic but not violent” — those facts do not meet the standard for lethal force.
This is the constitutional floor of your case. The officers had a duty to use reasonable means. If they had non-lethal options available — a taser, OC spray, retreat, containment, waiting for the owner to secure the dog — and chose lethal force instead, the seizure was unreasonable. A violation of your Fourth Amendment rights gives rise to a claim under federal civil rights law. And the Bane Act, which we cover next, provides a parallel California state-law path to the same conclusion, with the addition of statutory damages and attorney fees.
The Bane Act: Your Strongest Weapon Under California Law
California’s Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, codified at California Civil Code § 52.1, is one of the most powerful tools available to California residents whose constitutional rights have been violated by anyone — including law enforcement. The statute makes it actionable for any person to interfere with, or attempt to interfere with, another’s constitutional or statutory rights by “threats, intimidation, or coercion.”
The Bane Act is critical for two reasons. First, it provides for statutory damages — a minimum recovery of $4,000 per violation, with the possibility of higher awards and punitive damages. Second, and equally important, it provides for the recovery of attorney’s fees. This fee-shifting provision is what makes these cases economically viable. Without it, a lawyer could not afford to take a case where the dog’s “market value” is a few hundred dollars. With it, the attorney can work on contingency, knowing that if the case succeeds, the fees are paid by the defendant. The Bane Act is the reason a law firm like ours can fight the City of Los Angeles on your behalf without you paying anything upfront.
To invoke the Bane Act, we must show that the officers’ conduct amounted to a threat, intimidation, or coercion that interfered with your constitutional rights — here, your Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure. The discharge of a firearm at your dog in your own hallway, witnessed by you and your neighbors, meets that standard. The fact that the officers were on your property, in a residential building, responding to a welfare check that turned out to be a Knicks celebration, strengthens the argument. This was not a situation that called for force at all, let alone lethal force.
The Bane Act’s fee-shifting provision is the reason firms like ours can take cases that the traditional property-value analysis would make impossible. It transforms a case about a dog into a case about constitutional accountability, with the legal machinery to pursue it.
What LAPD’s Own Rules Say: The Policy They Were Trained to Follow
The LAPD Manual, Section 1/556.10, governs the use of force against animals. The policy states that officers should only use lethal force when the animal poses an immediate threat of injury. Not a potential threat. Not a perceived threat. An immediate threat of injury. The California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) provides additional guidelines for dog encounters that emphasize reading canine body language to distinguish between “energetic” and “aggressive” behavior. A dog that is excited, that is moving quickly, that is barking — that is energetic. A dog that is showing specific aggressive signals — bared teeth, lowered head, stiff posture, growling as it advances — is a different category entirely.
Witnesses describe Jameson as “energetic but not violent.” The owner, who knew the dog best, told activists he posed no threat. A photo shows the dog wearing a Knicks shirt moments before the shooting. The encounter happened in the hallway of Jameson’s own building, a space the dog had every right to be in. These are the facts that go to whether the officers followed their own training and their own department policy.
If the body-worn camera footage shows Jameson standing, or moving in a way consistent with excitement rather than aggression, the officers’ use of lethal force violated the LAPD’s own policy. This is the basis for a failure-to-train or policy-implementation claim against the department itself, and it is the evidence that will be evaluated in the internal LAPD review and, if necessary, in a civil trial.
The 6-Month Clock: The California Tort Claims Act Deadline You Cannot Miss
You cannot simply file a lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles. California law requires that you first file a formal claim with the City — a written document describing the incident, the damages, and the relief you seek. This is required by the California Tort Claims Act (Cal. Gov. Code §§ 810 et seq., specifically §§ 910, 911.2, and 945.4). The deadline to file this claim is six months from the date of the incident.
Six months sounds like a long time. It is not. The BWC footage release window is 45 days. The evidence preservation work needs to begin within days. Witness memories fade. The veterinary necropsy window is immediate. The six-month clock and the 45-day clock and the immediate preservation needs are all running at the same time, and they are all shorter than they feel.
After the City receives the claim, it has 45 days to respond. If the City denies the claim — which is the most common outcome — you then have six months from the date of that denial to file a lawsuit in court (Cal. Gov. Code § 945.6). If you miss the initial six-month claim deadline, your case against the City is barred. There are very limited exceptions, and they are narrow. The single most important thing you can do right now is to ensure that a claim is filed within the six-month window.
The California Tort Claims Act requires a formal claim to be filed with the City of Los Angeles within six months of the incident. After the City denies the claim, you have six months to file suit. Miss the CTCA deadline and your case is gone — no exceptions, no second chances.
The 45-Day Window: AB 748, SB 1421, and Your Fastest Path to the Truth
California’s body-worn camera transparency laws — Assembly Bill 748 and Senate Bill 1421 — require law enforcement agencies to disclose BWC footage in “critical incidents,” which include officer-involved shootings, within 45 days of the incident. The release can be delayed only if the agency demonstrates that disclosure would substantially interfere with an active investigation. The 45-day clock is statutory. It is not a suggestion. It is the law.
This footage is the single most important piece of evidence in your case. It will show: how the officers approached the building, whether they announced themselves, how Jameson moved, whether the dog was advancing or stationary or retreating, the officers’ demeanor, the time that elapsed between encounter and discharge, and whether non-lethal options were available and ignored. Cell phone video from neighbors shows the aftermath. The BWC footage will show the moment itself.
If the LAPD exceeds the 45-day window without a valid justification, you can petition the court for an order requiring immediate release. The law was written precisely to prevent the kind of delay and stonewalling that has historically protected police misconduct from public scrutiny. The footage is the truth. The 45-day window is the mechanism that forces the truth into the light.
Evidence Preservation: What Exists, Who Holds It, and How Fast It Dies
Every piece of evidence in this case has a clock. Here is what exists, who holds it, and how fast it can disappear.
Body-Worn Camera Footage
Held by: LAPD. Clock: 45 days under AB 748, but internal LAPD protocols may govern the actual release. Action: A formal preservation letter must be sent immediately to LAPD and the City of Los Angeles, demanding that all BWC footage from the incident be preserved and that it not be deleted, overwritten, or altered. We also demand the footage from any responding officers’ vehicles and any nearby surveillance cameras.
911 Audio and Dispatch Logs
Held by: Los Angeles Fire Department communications (for 911 audio) and LAPD (for dispatch logs). Clock: Digital records can be archived, deleted, or overwritten on rolling retention schedules. Action: Preservation letter to LAFD and LAPD demanding retention of all 911 audio, CAD (computer-aided dispatch) records, and communications logs. The original 911 call — characterized as a welfare check, not a violent crime — is critical context.
Veterinary Necropsy
Held by: The owner of the dog (or the veterinary facility handling the remains). Clock: Immediate. Action: Before Jameson’s remains are cremated, buried, or otherwise disposed of, a board-certified veterinary pathologist should perform a necropsy. The necropsy determines bullet trajectory, distance, and entry/exit wounds — evidence that proves whether the dog was advancing, stationary, or retreating. This is the physical evidence that corroborates or contradicts the officers’ account.
Neighbor Cell Phone Video
Held by: Witnesses. Clock: Medium. Action: We need to identify every witness with a cell phone and obtain copies of their footage. Witnesses may be contacted by LAPD Internal Affairs and may delete, lose, or be pressured to surrender their devices. Preserving these videos — through voluntary copy or, if necessary, subpoenas — is essential. The cell phone video that aired on ABC LA shows the owner’s screams and the aftermath. Other angles may exist.
Officers’ Training Files and Prior Use-of-Force History
Held by: LAPD. Clock: Retained for the duration of the officer’s employment. Action: These are not immediately available — they are obtained through discovery after a lawsuit is filed. But the lawsuit must be filed within the CTCA deadlines. The officers’ training records, prior use-of-force complaints, and any internal affairs history are central to proving that the department failed to train its officers on non-lethal animal encounters, or that the officers had a pattern of using excessive force.
The City’s Playbook: What LAPD and the City Attorney Will Do in the Next 90 Days
The City of Los Angeles is not a neutral party. It is a defendant with unlimited resources, experienced defense attorneys, and a well-practiced playbook for minimizing police misconduct claims. Here are the plays they will run, and the counter to each one.
Play 1: The “Friendly” Internal Affairs Interview
An LAPD Internal Affairs investigator will call you. They will sound sympathetic. They will say they want to “hear your side” and “understand what happened.” They will ask you to come to a station, or to sit down for a recorded conversation. This is a recorded statement. It is designed to lock in your account before you have legal counsel, to minimize the officers’ conduct, and to create a transcript that the City Attorney can later use to limit your damages. Counter: Do not speak to Internal Affairs or any LAPD investigator without your attorney present. You have the right to remain silent about this incident. Politely say: “I will cooperate through my attorney.” That is the full extent of what you need to say. For guidance on what you should and should not say to investigators, see our resource on what not to say to an insurance adjuster — the principle is identical. The investigator is not your friend. They are building the City’s defense.
Play 2: The “Dangerous Dog” Narrative
The City will argue that Jameson was charging, growling, or acting aggressively. They will point to the officers’ subjective fear in the moment. They will cherry-pick frames from the BWC footage (if and when it is released) to support a narrative of an imminent threat. Counter: A veterinary behaviorist — a expert in canine body language — can analyze the BWC footage frame by frame to determine whether Jameson’s posture, tail position, ear position, and movement patterns were consistent with excitement or with aggression. The neighbor accounts and the cell phone video corroborate that Jameson was “energetic but not violent.” The owner’s son, who knew the dog, confirmed it. POST guidelines specifically train officers to distinguish between these two categories. If the officers’ own training tells them how to read the difference, and they got it wrong, that is the failure at the center of the case.
Play 3: The Delay Beyond 45 Days
LAPD may claim that releasing the BWC footage would “substantially interfere with an active investigation” and delay disclosure beyond the AB 748 window. Counter: The 45-day clock is statutory. It is not a guideline. If LAPD exceeds it without a valid, specific justification, we can petition the court for an order of immediate release. The law was written to prevent exactly this kind of bureaucratic stonewalling. We will not wait passively while the City decides when — or if — to show the public what its officers did.
Play 4: The Quick, Lowball Settlement
The City’s claims adjuster may contact you with an early offer. It will likely be small — the “market value” of the dog (a few hundred dollars, if the dog was a mixed breed from a shelter), plus vet and burial expenses. The offer will come with a release: a legal document that, once signed, forever bars you from pursuing any further claim, including the Bane Act, the Fourth Amendment claim, and any claim for emotional distress or intrinsic value. Counter: Do not sign anything without your attorney’s review. The market-value offer ignores intrinsic value, ignores emotional distress, ignores the Bane Act’s statutory damages, and ignores the constitutional violation. A release signed today is a right given up forever. The offer will go up — significantly — once the BWC footage is released and the City sees what the public will see. Patience is leverage.
Play 5: The “Split-Second Decision” Defense
The City will argue that the officers had to make a quick decision in a dangerous situation, and that the reasonableness of their actions should be judged from their perspective in that split second. Counter: Officers are specifically trained to handle exactly this scenario. POST guidelines teach them to read canine body language and to use non-lethal options. A taser, OC spray, retreat, or containment were all available. A condo hallway is a confined, controlled environment — the opposite of a life-or-death ambush. The “split-second” defense fails when the training specifically addresses the scenario and prescribes a different response. The officers’ training is part of the reasonableness analysis, and their training says don’t do this.
Damages: What Your Case Is Worth
The traditional analysis of damages in a dog-shooting case starts with the market value of the animal. For most companion animals, that number is low — the cost of adoption or purchase, which for a mixed-breed family dog may be a few hundred dollars. The City will anchor on this number. They will argue that the most they owe you is the replacement cost of a similar dog. This is the analysis the Bane Act was designed to overcome.
Your case includes several categories of damages, each of which we will pursue:
- Economic damages: The market value of Jameson, veterinary and burial expenses, and any out-of-pocket costs related to the incident.
- Intrinsic value: Beyond market value, California courts have recognized that a companion animal has intrinsic value to the owner — the value of the specific relationship, the specific animal, the years of companionship that cannot be replaced by purchasing a new dog.
- Emotional distress: You witnessed the aftermath of your dog’s killing in your own home. You heard the shots. You screamed. You are living with the trauma of that night. Emotional distress damages in a case like this can be significant, particularly when the conduct is deemed reckless or intentional.
- Bane Act statutory damages: A minimum of $4,000 per violation under California Civil Code § 52.1, with the possibility of higher awards and punitive damages where the conduct is egregious.
- Attorney’s fees: Under the Bane Act, if you prevail, the City pays your attorney’s fees. This provision is what allows a law firm to take the case on contingency — it makes the case economically viable even when the “property value” of the dog is low.
The realistic case value range, based on the factors present in this type of case, is approximately $75,000 to $500,000. The lower end reflects cases where liability is contested and damages are limited to traditional categories. The upper end reflects cases with egregious body-worn camera footage, strong emotional distress evidence, successful Bane Act claims, and high public visibility. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. The value of your specific case will depend on the BWC footage, the strength of the witness accounts, the necropsy results, and the City’s willingness to accept responsibility.
For context on how damages are calculated in personal injury cases more broadly, our guide on car accident settlements walks through the same analytical framework — economic damages, non-economic damages, and the factors that move a case up or down the value scale.
The Proof Story: How a Case Like This Gets Built
Here is how a police misconduct dog-shooting case is actually built, step by step, from the first phone call to the final resolution.
Step 1: Immediate Evidence Preservation (Days 1–7)
Within the first week, we send formal preservation letters to LAPD, the City of Los Angeles, the LAFD communications center, and any other agency or entity that may hold records. The letters demand that all BWC footage, 911 audio, dispatch logs, CAD records, and surveillance video be preserved and not deleted, overwritten, or altered. We also identify and contact every witness, obtain copies of their cell phone footage, and arrange for a veterinary necropsy of Jameson’s remains before any disposition.
Step 2: Government Claim Filing (Within 6 Months)
Under the California Tort Claims Act, we file a formal claim with the City of Los Angeles. The claim describes the incident, the legal basis for liability (Fourth Amendment, Bane Act, negligence), the damages suffered, and the relief sought. The City has 45 days to respond.
Step 3: BWC Release Demand (Day 45 and Beyond)
If LAPD has not released the body-worn camera footage within 45 days, we file a formal demand under AB 748 and SB 1421. If the City refuses or delays without valid justification, we petition the court for an order of immediate release.
Step 4: Lawsuit Filing (Within 6 Months of Claim Denial)
If the City denies the claim (the most common outcome), we have six months to file a lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The complaint alleges violations of the Fourth Amendment, the Bane Act, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The City Attorney’s office takes over the defense at this point.
Step 5: Discovery (Months 6–18)
Discovery is where the case deepens. We subpoena the officers’ complete training files, their prior use-of-force history, any internal affairs complaints, and LAPD’s policies and training materials on animal encounters. We depose the officers under oath. We depose their supervisors. We obtain the internal LAPD communications about the incident, including any reports from officers at the scene.
Step 6: Expert Retention
We retain a veterinary behaviorist to analyze the BWC footage and provide an expert opinion on Jameson’s body language. We retain a use-of-force expert to testify about whether the officers’ actions conformed to LAPD policy and POST guidelines. These experts transform the case from a credibility contest between the owner and the officers into a technical analysis grounded in science and policy.
Step 7: Resolution
Most cases resolve before trial — through mediation, a settlement conference, or direct negotiation. The BWC footage, the expert opinions, and the discovery materials typically make the City’s exposure clear. If the City is willing to offer fair compensation, we negotiate a resolution. If not, we try the case to a jury. The jury pool in Los Angeles County is diverse, fair, and capable of understanding both the constitutional violation and the human loss. For an overview of what a trial process looks like, see our discussion of wrongful death litigation — the procedural framework is the same: accountability for a preventable loss of a family member.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I sue the LAPD for killing my dog?
Yes. You cannot sue the LAPD directly — you must sue the City of Los Angeles, which is legally responsible for the conduct of its officers under California Government Code § 815.2. You can also name the individual officers in their personal capacity. The claims available include a Fourth Amendment violation (killing a pet is an unreasonable seizure of property), a Bane Act violation (Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1), negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Bane Act is the most powerful tool because it provides statutory damages and attorney’s fees, making the case viable even when the dog’s market value is low.
Is a dog just property in California?
California law traditionally classifies pets as personal property, but federal courts, including the Ninth Circuit, have recognized that killing a companion animal is a “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment and that the owner may recover the intrinsic value of the animal — not just the market replacement cost. California appellate courts have also allowed emotional distress damages in cases where the killing was wrongful. The law is evolving. The traditional property label does not limit your recovery to the price of a new dog.
What is the Bane Act?
The Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code § 52.1, allows any person to sue anyone who interferes with their constitutional or statutory rights by threats, intimidation, or coercion. It applies to police officers as well as private parties. The Bane Act provides for statutory damages (a minimum of $4,000 per violation), actual damages, punitive damages where appropriate, and critically, the recovery of attorney’s fees. The fee-shifting provision is what makes it possible for a law firm to take these cases on contingency.
How long do I have to file a claim against the City of Los Angeles?
You have six months from the date of the incident to file a formal claim with the City under the California Tort Claims Act. This is a hard deadline. After the City denies the claim (or 45 days pass without a response), you have six months to file a lawsuit. If you miss the initial six-month deadline, your case against the City is barred. There are very limited exceptions. Do not wait to act.
When will the body camera footage be released?
Under California law (AB 748 and SB 1421), the LAPD must release body-worn camera footage from officer-involved shootings within 45 days, unless release would substantially interfere with an active investigation. The 45-day clock runs from the date of the incident. If the LAPD exceeds the window without valid justification, you can petition the court for an order of immediate release. In this case, the incident occurred on June 13, 2026, which means the 45-day window expires in late July 2026.
What if the officers say the dog was aggressive?
The officers’ subjective account is not the end of the analysis. A veterinary behaviorist can analyze the BWC footage to determine whether the dog’s body language was consistent with excitement or with aggression. POST guidelines specifically train officers to distinguish between these two categories. The neighbor accounts and the cell phone video corroborate that Jameson was “energetic but not violent.” If the officers got it wrong — if the training says one thing and they did another — that is the failure at the center of the case. You also have the right to obtain the officers’ training records and prior use-of-force history through discovery.
Can I recover for emotional distress?
Yes. You witnessed the aftermath of your dog’s killing in your own home. You heard the shots. You screamed. The emotional trauma is real, documented, and compensable. California courts have allowed emotional distress damages in animal-killing cases where the owner’s observation of the killing or its immediate aftermath caused severe emotional distress. The Bane Act also provides statutory damages that are independent of your emotional distress damages — they are layered on top.
What if my dog was “just a pet” and not a service animal or emotional support animal?
It does not matter. The Fourth Amendment, the Bane Act, and the negligence and IIED claims do not require that the animal be a certified service animal. The claims apply to any companion animal. Jameson was a family member. The law is beginning to recognize that. Even under the traditional property framework, the intrinsic value of a companion animal — the value of the specific relationship, the specific dog, the years of companionship — is recoverable.
How much is my case worth?
The realistic range for a case of this type is approximately $75,000 to $500,000. The lower end reflects cases with contested liability and limited damages. The upper end reflects cases with strong BWC footage, successful Bane Act claims, and significant emotional distress evidence. The value of your specific case will depend on the BWC footage, the witness accounts, the necropsy results, and the City’s willingness to accept responsibility. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.
Do I need a lawyer for this?
Yes. The City of Los Angeles has a team of experienced defense attorneys. The claims process is technical, with strict deadlines. The Bane Act’s fee-shifting provision means you can hire a lawyer on contingency — no fee unless you win. Without a lawyer, you are navigating a six-month deadline, a 45-day BWC window, a preservation process, and a government claims process that is designed to filter out cases. The short answer is yes, you need a lawyer. For a broader discussion of when hiring a personal injury attorney makes sense, see our analysis of whether personal injury lawyers are worth it.
Why Attorney911: The Trial Team That Takes On the Government
Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC — is built on a simple idea: people in a legal emergency deserve someone who picks up the phone now. We are trial attorneys with 27+ years of courtroom experience, including federal court, fighting against well-funded defendants — corporations, insurance companies, and government entities. We have recovered more than $50 million for families since 1998, and we have stood in front of juries against defendants the size of mountains. We have also fought in the BP Texas City refinery explosion litigation and currently represent a family in a hazing case that resulted in a fraternity chapter surrendering its charter.
Our team includes Ralph Manginello, the managing partner, a former journalist who became a trial lawyer and a championship point guard before that — he explains cases like a storyteller and fights them like a competitor who hates losing. Our team also includes Lupe Peña, a former insurance defense attorney who spent years inside a national defense firm, in the rooms where adjusters and their software decided how to deny, delay, and devalue claims exactly like yours. We know the other side’s playbook because one of us lived it, and now we run it in reverse. Lupe serves families fully in Spanish — Hablamos Español.
We work on contingency. There is no fee unless we win. The consultation is free, confidential, and available 24/7. We will evaluate your case, explain your options, and tell you honestly whether we can help. If we are not the right fit, we will tell you that too.
If LAPD killed your dog — or if law enforcement has violated your rights in any way — the clock is running. The 45-day BWC window, the six-month CTCA deadline, and the evidence preservation needs are all in motion right now. Call us at 1-888-ATTY-911. Or visit our contact page to reach us online. The consultation costs nothing, and you will walk away knowing exactly where you stand, what your options are, and what the next ninety days will hold.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. This page provides legal information, not legal advice for your specific situation. Contacting the firm does not create an attorney-client relationship.