Case Background
Isaac Castellanos filed this federal civil rights lawsuit in February 2022 against the City of Los Angeles, LAPD Officers Cody MacArthur and Jesse Pineda, and then-LAPD Chief Michel Moore. The case stemmed from the LAPD's crowd control response during the Los Angeles Dodgers' 2020 World Series Championship celebration in Downtown Los Angeles. Castellanos alleged that officers fired "less lethal" 37mm rubber projectiles into a peaceful crowd without any dispersal warning, striking him in the right eye and permanently blinding him. The lawsuit raised federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a California Bane Act claim, and state law negligence. The case went to a six-day jury trial beginning April 7, 2026, before Judge Otis D. Wright, II. The LAPD faced a long history of lawsuits over its crowd control tactics, including prior settlements tied to the 2000 Democratic National Convention, the 2007 MacArthur Park incident, and the 2020 George Floyd protests — all involving allegations of indiscriminate use of less-lethal munitions against peaceful gatherings.
Cause
On the night of October 27, 2020, the Los Angeles Dodgers clinched the World Series Championship for the first time in over 30 years. Isaac Castellanos, then a 22-year-old college senior at California State University, Long Beach, joined hundreds of fans celebrating near the Crypto.com arena (formerly the Staples Center) in Downtown Los Angeles. Just past midnight on October 28, 2020, LAPD officers approached the crowd and began firing 37mm "less-lethal" projectiles without issuing any dispersal order or warning. As Castellanos turned around to check on a friend, a rubber bullet struck him directly in his right eye from approximately 145 feet away. The officers fired the rounds at a distance and trajectory that allowed the projectiles to reach head level, contrary to safety protocols that required lower-body targeting at closer range.
Injury
Castellanos suffered severe blunt-force trauma to his right eye, resulting in permanent central vision loss and persistent mydriasis. Medical professionals confirmed the damage was irreversible with no available treatment or surgical option. He experienced ongoing loss of depth perception, double or triple vision, difficulty reading, and challenges performing everyday tasks such as cooking, studying, and athletic activities. Before the incident, Castellanos competed as a professional esports athlete and streamer and won a $40,000 gaming tournament just weeks before the shooting. The injury ended that career path and caused lasting emotional distress, including anxiety and depression.
Damages Sought
Plaintiff's counsel asked the jury to award up to $13 million in combined compensatory damages covering future medical care, loss of earning capacity, and past and future noneconomic damages including pain, suffering, emotional distress, disability, disfigurement, and loss of enjoyment of life.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Isaac Castellanos
· Counsel for Plaintiff: Pedram Esfandiary | Monique A. Alarcon | Timothy A. Loranger | Matthew Patrick French | Ronald L M Goldman
Defendants: City of Los Angeles | Officer Cody MacArthur | Officer Jesse Pineda
· Counsel for Defendants: Michael Dale Williamson | Muna Busailah | Michael P. Stone
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Plaintiff's attorney Pedram Esfandiary argued that Officers MacArthur and Pineda violated LAPD policy by discharging their 37mm less-lethal weapons to disperse a largely peaceful celebration crowd without warning. He told the jury the officers broke their own department's rules, which required dispersal orders before using projectile force and prohibited firing at the head or vital organs. Esfandiary emphasized that Castellanos posed no threat, carried no weapon, and was simply trying to leave the area when he was shot.
Defense attorney Michael Williamson countered that no evidence proved a projectile fired by MacArthur or Pineda caused the eye injury. He told the jury the officers followed procedure by firing projectiles at the ground so they would skip up into the crowd to encourage dispersal. He argued that when facing a violent crowd, officers used their judgment on whether to issue a warning first, and that the situation that night warranted their response.
Claims
Excessive Force (42 U.S.C. § 1983): Castellanos alleged that both officers used excessive and unreasonable force against him while he was peacefully assembled, violating his Fourth Amendment rights. He argued the officers fired less-lethal projectiles indiscriminately into a crowd without any warning, probable cause, or lawful basis.
Negligence: Castellanos claimed both officers breached their duty of care by failing to act as reasonable law enforcement officers would under the circumstances. He argued they fired projectiles at his face when LAPD protocols prohibited targeting the head, and that less dangerous crowd control methods were available.
Bane Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1): Castellanos alleged the officers interfered through threats, intimidation, and coercion with his right to be free from excessive force. He argued the officers acted intentionally or with reckless disregard for his constitutional rights.
Defense
The Defendants raised multiple affirmative defenses. They argued the force used was reasonable and necessitated by Castellanos's own actions and the actions of the crowd. They asserted qualified immunity, claiming their conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights. They also argued Castellanos assumed the risk by remaining in the area and that his own negligence contributed to his injuries. The defense maintained that the officers acted within established LAPD protocols and that no direct evidence linked a specific projectile from either officer to the Plaintiff's eye injury.
Jury Verdict
The eight-person jury deliberated for less than two hours before returning a unanimous verdict on April 16, 2026, finding in favor of Isaac Castellanos on every claim.
On the excessive force claim, the jury found that both Officer MacArthur and Officer Pineda used excessive or unreasonable force against Castellanos, and that the conduct of both officers caused his injuries. On negligence, the jury found both officers were negligent and that their negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm. On the Bane Act claim, the jury found both officers interfered with Castellanos's right to be free from excessive force and acted with intent to deprive him of that right or with reckless disregard for it.
The jury apportioned fault equally 50% to Officer MacArthur and 50% to Officer Pineda.
The jury awarded a total of $11,812,180 in compensatory damages, broken down as follows: $135,749 for future medical care, $3,676,431 for loss of earning capacity, $1,000,000 for past pain and suffering, emotional distress, disability, disfigurement, and loss of enjoyment of life, and $7,000,000 for future pain and suffering, emotional distress, disability, disfigurement, and loss of enjoyment of life.
On April 22, 2026, Judge Otis D. Wright, II entered judgment ordering the City of Los Angeles, Officer MacArthur, and Officer Pineda to pay the full $11,812,180 to Castellanos, with 50% apportioned to MacArthur and the City and 50% to Pineda and the City. The Court also ruled Castellanos could apply to recover attorneys' fees, costs, and post-judgment interest.
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]
