The legal team representing the Los Angeles Dodgers in an upcoming trial want a judge to bar mention of the parking lot attack that left a San Francisco Giants fan with severe injuries 13 years ago.
Bryan Stow, then 42, was attacked by two fans on March 31, 2011 in the Dodger Stadium parking lot after the season opener between the Dodgers and Giants, whom Stow supports. He suffered severe injuries that left him in a medically-induced coma. According to court papers, lawyers maintain that mentioning the Stow case would be prejudicial against the team.
In that instance, a Los Angeles Superior Court jury awarded Stow with $18 million in damages, attributing 75% of the liability to the men who attacked him, and the other 25% to the team. None of the liability fell on then-Dodgers owner Frank McCourt.
The upcoming trial involves the team and a man who alleges he was beaten by the team's security force in 2021. Plaintiffs Salvador and Priscilla Mota say that they attended a game on Aug. 17, 2021, when the Boys in Blue were hosting the Pittsburgh Pirates.
The couple says they were on their way out of one of the stadium's parking lots when security team members told him to get out of his car, according to the lawsuit.
"Priscilla watched in horror as sworn and non-sworn security attacked her husband without reason or provocation," the lawsuit says. It was filed in April 2022.
The lawsuit then alleges that Mota was handcuffed before being taken to a hospital for severe injuries that he suffered to his face, eye, shoulder and leg. Allegations include assault, battery, false imprisonment, emotional distress and a violation of civil rights.
Lawyers for the Dodgers maintain that the two incidents are entirely unrelated and that security procedures under the current ownership are different than those in 2011.
"Nothing in the Bryan Stow incident would ten to show that the Los Angeles Dodgers or any defendant is liable for the claims asserted by plaintiffs in this matter," court papers filed by the team's lawyers on Friday said. "Moreover, the jury verdict from this case is both irrelevant and substantially more prejudicial than probative."
The hearing is scheduled for January 10.
