Case Background
Margarito T. Lopez, Sonia Torres, Keni Lopez, and Rosy Lopez filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. They brought the action against the City of Los Angeles, police officers Jose Zavala and Julio Quintanilla, and unnamed defendants. The case arose from a fatal police shooting involving their family member, who was experiencing a mental health crisis.
Cause
On December 18, 2021, around 7:00 p.m., Sonia Torres called 911. She reported that her brother, Margarito Edvin Lopez, was threatening to take his own life. Officers Zavala and Quintanilla responded to the call and arrived at the family’s home. They encountered Lopez outside, holding a knife. The officers pointed a spotlight at him and ordered him to drop the weapon.
Lopez remained seated and silent. Officers continued to shout commands. Two minutes into the encounter, they fired a less-lethal round at him. Despite no clear aggression, they escalated force. As Lopez began to move, officers fired multiple less-lethal rounds and then live ammunition. Bullets struck Lopez several times.
The responding officers did not contact the Mental Evaluation Unit or SMART team due to time constraints. This decision, the plaintiffs claimed, failed to meet the standards for responding to mental health crises.
Injury
Lopez died at the scene from multiple gunshot wounds. His death occurred in front of family members, who watched the confrontation unfold.
Damages
The lawsuit did not specify monetary damages in detail. However, the plaintiffs sought compensation for the loss of life, emotional trauma, and constitutional violations. They also asked for legal costs and attorney’s fees.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Debra Silvas
Counsel for Plaintiff: David D. Bibiyan | Diego Aviles
Defendant(s): Catalyst Family, Inc.
Counsel for Defendant: Rona Page Layton
Claims
The plaintiffs alleged excessive force, denial of medical care, and violations of the decedent’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. They also asserted interference with their familial relationship under federal law.
Against the City of Los Angeles, they claimed ratification of misconduct, failure to train, and a custom of excessive force. State-level claims included negligence, battery, and emotional distress, as well as violations of California’s Bane Act.
Defense
Catalyst Family, Inc., the defendant in this class action lawsuit, filed a general denial in response to all allegations raised by plaintiff Debra Silvas. The company denied liability for any alleged labor violations and claimed that the plaintiff suffered no injury or damages due to any act or omission by the defendant. Asserting multiple affirmative defenses, Catalyst argued that any alleged non-compliance with the Labor Code was unintentional and made in good faith, with a reasonable belief that its practices complied with the law.
Furthermore, Catalyst challenged the validity of the class action itself, arguing that the proposed class lacked commonality, typicality, and numerosity required under California’s class action rules. It also stated that individualized issues would predominate and that a class action was not a superior or appropriate method for resolving the claims. The company reserved the right to assert additional defenses as more facts emerged during discovery.
Final Fairness Hearing
On September 25, 2025, at 1:30 PM in Department 7, the court is scheduled to hold a Motion for Final Fairness Hearing in the case Silvas v. Catalyst Family, Inc.
This hearing will determine whether the proposed class action settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate under California law. The court will evaluate the terms of the settlement agreement, consider any objections or comments from class members, and decide whether to grant final approval. If approved, the settlement will resolve all claims brought by the class against Catalyst Family, Inc., and conclude the litigation.
Court Documents
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]
