A man who sued the city and county of San Diego over the shooting death of his mother by sheriff’s deputies and a police officer has reached settlement agreements with all parties — but not before the lawsuit sparked a bitter spat between the government defendants.
Lawyers from City Attorney Mara Elliott’s office have opposed the county’s agreement, writing that they were “flabbergasted” when they learned the county had negotiated a settlement without them and saying the “county took advantage of the city.” The city attorneys said the Sheriff’s Department’s “bad decisions, tactics and training” led to the fatal shooting in the Little Italy condominium complex.
County attorneys countered that they were forced to negotiate independently because the city was being “unreasonable” in offering to pay just a fraction of a potential joint settlement.
The federal wrongful death lawsuit stems from the March 3, 2022, shooting of 47-year-old Yan Li, a Yale-trained scientist whose son argued was “clearly in a state of mental crisis” when three county sheriff’s deputies and a San Diego police officer shot and killed her.
The county in December agreed to pay $825,000 to Li’s son to settle the suit, though a judge must still approve the terms. The city has asked the judge not to sign off on the county’s agreement. Last Friday the city and the plaintiff reached their own settlement, the terms of which have not yet been made public.
“Our office is not at liberty to disclose potential settlement terms until (City) Council takes the matter up in open session,” a spokesperson for the City Attorney’s Office told the Union-Tribune Thursday. “We expect that to occur within the next couple of weeks.”
The events that led to Li’s death began with Deputy Jason Bunch trying to serve her an eviction notice from her fifth-floor unit at Acqua Vista Condominiums on West Beech Street. Li answered the door holding a knife — her son argued she was cooking at the time — to which Bunch responded by pulling out his gun and repeatedly threatening to shoot her, according to body-worn camera footage released after the shooting. Li fled back inside her home, but less than an hour later deputies and police officers with dogs entered her unit. Li charged at the group, stabbing police Officer Bret Edwards as deputies and officers fell over each other and tumbled into the hallway. The four lawmen then opened fire.
Last March, a little more than a year after Li’s death, her son sued the county, the city, Bunch and the four law enforcement agents who shot his mother — sheriff’s Sgt. Daniel Nickel, sheriff’s deputies Javier Medina and David Williams, and police Officer Rogelio Medina. The federal suit set forth 11 claims, including unlawful detention, excessive force, inadequate training, false arrest or imprisonment and negligence.
Over the next eight months, attorneys for the plaintiffs worked on a potential settlement with the county defendants, which includes the county and the four deputies, and the city defendants, which includes the city and Officer Medina. Stacy Plotkin-Wolff, a senior chief deputy city attorney, wrote in court documents that she believed the city and county were working together to negotiate a settlement.
But at a Dec. 1 mandatory settlement conference with U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Major, Plotkin-Wolff learned that was not the case.
“Counsel for the City was flabbergasted and disheartened when she learned the County settled the case for $825,000, without the City,” Plotkin-Wolff wrote in a recent filing. In a related declaration, she wrote that she was “astounded” and “dismayed” when she learned the county had negotiated and settled the case separately.
Earlier this month, the City Attorney’s Office filed a motion opposing the county’s settlement with Li’s son.
Plotkin-Wolff argued, in part, that the judge should reject the settlement because the county’s “settlement tactics were not in good faith.” She also argued the sheriff’s deputies involved in the incident were more responsible for Li’s death than the one police officer who fired.
“The County should be precluded from leaving the City to potentially bear the brunt of the County’s bad decisions, tactics and training,” Plotkin-Wolff wrote. “… The County Defendants are primarily responsible for what occurred here.”
The City Attorney’s Office also argued the county’s settlement was too low compared with the multi-million dollar settlements and judgments the plaintiff’s attorneys had secured in other similar cases. “The settlement is not near the ballpark let alone in the ballpark,” Plotkin-Wolff wrote.
Robert Ortiz, a senior deputy in the Office of County Counsel, responded days later that the plaintiff had initially requested a $1.5 million settlement, so the amount the county agreed to pay “is well within the ballpark.”
Many of Ortiz’s key responses to the city’s allegations of bad-faith negotiations are redacted in the publicly available court filing. But Ortiz suggested that when the city and county were negotiating as a united front early in the case, the city shifted its position and was unwilling to contribute a significant amount to the settlement total.
“Given the City Defendants’ changing settlement positions, the County Defendants decided to negotiate independently” at the Dec. 1 mandatory settlement conference, Ortiz wrote. “… The City Defendants’ insistence on contributing only a limited amount towards a global resolution was unreasonable and required the County Defendants and Plaintiffs to work even harder to reach a fair and reasonable resolution.”
A county spokesperson said the spat would not affect future cases involving both the city and county.
“County Counsel and the City Attorney’s Office will continue its working relationship, defending the interests of its respective clients,” Michael Workman told the Union-Tribune on Thursday. “Each case is, and will continue to be, handled professionally by our respective offices.”
The city attorney spokesperson declined to respond to questions about the relationship between the two offices.
The judge has not yet ruled on the city’s motion opposing the county’s settlement.
