Attorneys for the Las Vegas Metro Police Department confirmed that Jose “Chille” DeCastro is demanding $1,000,000.00 in pain and suffering related damages in the lawsuit spawned from his March 2023 arrest in Las Vegas.
DeCastro’s claims were documented in Monday’s filing of the defendants’ omnibus motion in Limine, which was sent to but not stipulated by DeCastro or his council, Michael Mee. The motion itself is designed to request the judge to rule on the admissibility of specific evidence or testimony before the trial starts.
The defense is seeking that plaintiff DeCastro be prohibited from introducing evidence related to the following topics:
- Any evidence regarding the criminal proceedings resulting from his arrest and charges following the subject incident;
- Any damages asserted by DeCastro not previously identified in his computation of damages;
- Any medical damages;
- Evidence of any other incidents of alleged police misconduct
The defendants have also requested that all damages be cut off after the prosecutor’s independent decision to charge DeCastro.
DeCastro was arrested on a livestream in March of 2023 when he approached a traffic stop in downtown Las Vegas. He was asked to step away from the traffic stop then was arrested when he resisted direct orders from the police officer on scene.
A scuffle broke out and DeCastro would eventually be detailed by multiple police officers while on scene. He would complain about a police officer who tightly held his left bicep during the detention; a complaint about being struck in the groin while being searched was added to his lawsuit but was not mentioned on scene nor included in DeCastro’s later filed doctor’s note.
DeCastro was found guilty of interference in a traffic stop and obstruction of a police officer in March of 2024. He would serve around four months of his sentence before having his conviction overturned later that year when the appeals court ruled that DeCastro attempted to comply with the officer’s orders.
The defense is asking for DeCastro to be barred from discussing the state court’s rulings before the jury since different standards were used in both his prosecution and his appeal than what would be before the federal court.
On the issue of probable cause, they stated the following:
“As this Court has previously determined, the Nevada district court was not making a probable cause determination; it was acting as an appellate court reviewing whether the Justice Court erred in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (ECF No. 100 at 18, n.6). The standard for a criminal conviction – beyond a reasonable doubt – is substantially higher than the “fair probability” standard for probable cause. See United States v. Collins, 427 F.3d 688, 691 (9th Cir. 2005). Evidence of the criminal proceedings is therefore irrelevant under FRE 401 because DeCastro’s reversed conviction has no bearing on the jury’s independent analysis of the questions of fact in this case.”
They are also asking that DeCastro’s damage claims be limited to what he submitted in his 2023 initial disclosures.
Those disclosures were listed as:
- Loss of use of property: $20 (no receipt in my possession, for ride to vehicle, will follow)
- 3/20/2023 urgent care visit for ulnar nerve damage: $150
- Second visit to urgent care for ulnar nerve damage: $150 (no receipt in my possession, will follow)
- $7,500 (average cost of ulnar nerve release surgery in California according to sidecar)
- $992,180 pain and suffering and loss of quality of life (based on $90,000 median and $4.5M max jury award for ulnar nerve compression injury according to jury award data with Lexis Nexis, damages of $1,000,000.00 minus the monetary costs)
The defendants’ requests include barring DeCastro from presenting witnesses to talk about his injuries. They noted that DeCastro has had nearly three years to disclose his injuries along with witnesses to testify to the extent of those injuries and missed the filing deadlines to include such witnesses.
They wrote:
“DeCastro cannot justify his failure to disclose and such failure is not harmless. DeCastro’s failure to provide a computation including any additional damages requires this Court to prohibit DeCastro from introducing any evidence of damages, beyond what is already included in his computation of damages, at the time of trial. The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and the court’s need to manage its docket weigh in favor of excluding surprise damages evidence at trial. Under Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii), DeCastro was required to provide a complete computation within his disclosures. DeCastro provided his initial disclosure on December 4, 2023 and never provided a supplemental a damage calculation. Ex. D. Allowing DeCastro to provide either a new category or theory of damages would likely require reopening discovery and setting a new briefing schedule on summary judgment motions related to damages.
Should DeCastro be allowed to introduce new categories or theories of damages at trial, the risk of prejudice to LVMPD is substantial. The parties have spent nearly three years litigating this case. Requiring LVMPD Defendants to proceed to trial without an understanding of what damages DeCastro is seeking or how those damages were calculated is trial by ambush. See Shakespear v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 2:12-CV-01064-MMD-PAL, 2013 WL 6498898, at *4 (D. Nev. Dec. 10, 2013) (“[A]lthough there is a public policy to hear cases on their merits, there is also a public policy against trial by ambush.”). Thus, this Court should preclude DeCastro from introducing new categories or theories of damages beyond what is included in his December 4, 2023 Plaintiff’s Rule 26(a) Initial Disclosures.”
DeCastro’s lawsuit against the LVMPD is currently set to go to trial on February 9, 2026.
