LA must face trial for less-lethal round that hit wrong man

A Los Angeles judge denied a motion by the city and an LAPD officer for judgment in a lawsuit by a plaintiff who said he was injured by a misfired less-lethal round at a concert.

Judge Tiana J. Murillo denied the City of Los Angeles and Officer Michael Otamendi's motion for judgment on the pleadings in a tentative ruling that attorneys for the plaintiff confirmed she adopted in full on Monday.

"All three of plaintiff's claims, including his negligence claim, rely primarily on Otamendi's own immediate acts or omissions when he allegedly shot plaintiff. For plaintiff's negligence claim specifically, plaintiff relies not only on Otamendi or others' failure to maintain or train (which may indeed be barred as a matter of law), but on 'Otamendi's negligently attempting to shoot a person at a range double the distance he had ever practiced,' i.e., on Otamendi's own alleged negligence." Murillo wrote, quoting from the plaintiff's complaint. "Thus, judgment on the pleading is not justified."

Plaintiff Joseph LaRocca is represented by sole practitioners John C. Burton of Pasadena and Erin R. Darling of Los Angeles.

"We're pleased that Judge Murillo has cleared the way for trial," Burton said in a phone call on Monday. "There's a few minor issues to resolve, but they won't affect the main thrust of the trial."

The defense is represented by Deputy City Attorney Ty A. Ford. Representatives for the city attorney's office did not respond to phoned or emailed requests for comment by press time on Monday.

The alleged shooting occurred at an unauthorized punk rock concert in an industrial area east of downtown Los Angeles, the complaint filed in March 2024 claimed. LaRocca v. City of Los Angeles et al., 24STCV07744 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed March 27, 2025).

LaRocca claimed he was struck when Otamendi fired a less lethal round at another man, who had launched a firework.

"Otamendi fired a 40mm round from about 60 feet that hit plaintiff in the right forehead, knocking him to the ground and leaving a bloody gash, skull fracture and internal bleeding," the complaint read.

The shot violated LAPD policy, Burton said, which only allows the use of less lethal force to prevent a suspect from committing a violent act.

"They're so inaccurate, they're always hitting unintended targets," Burton said. "LaRocca was an unintended target. That's an ongoing problem. He got hit in the head, he had a fractured skull, had a brain bleed called subdural hematoma. He was hospitalized for two days."

The city moved for judgment on the pleadings on July 2, arguing that LaRocca's claims fail as a matter of law.

In a July 21 trial brief filed by the defense, the city claimed that LaRocca's rights weren't violated because Otamendi did not intend to target him.

"It is undisputed that Officer Otamendi did not intentionally touch plaintiff - to the contrary, he intended to shoot the unidentified 'man on the mound' with the 40mm launcher, which was reasonable force to arrest or detain the unidentified 'man on the mound,' to prevent the unidentified 'man on the mound's' escape, to overcome the unidentified man on the mound's' resistance, or to defend himself and/or others," the brief read.

In her ruling, however, Murillo found LaRocca had made a sufficient showing of potential liability for the city and Otamendi.

"The city may be held vicariously liable for Otamendi's acts or omissions, and all of plaintiff's causes of action, as pled, advance theories of vicarious liability against the city for Otamendi's alleged acts or omissions committed during the course and scope of his employment with the city," she wrote.

However, Murillo also said that some of the defense's arguments have merit and should be resolved through motions in limine, pointing to a July 2 motion reciting similar arguments to their motion for judgment on the pleadings.

"That motion and this one both argue for overbroad relief; defendants' arguments do not defeat plaintiff's claims in their entirety, for reasons discussed in detail above," Murillo wrote. "And because Plaintiff's opposition is directed to Defendants' overbroad request for relief, his opposition is not effective to narrow the issues.

"In the interest of resolving the limits on plaintiff's claims and evidence prior to trial, the court will set a briefing schedule on the narrower question of which of plaintiff's individual allegations and related evidence cannot sustain liability on the bases identified in defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings and Motion in Limine No. 1," she continued.

A further status conference is scheduled for Sept. 10, with a jury trial to follow on Sept. 22.