Handy Jones v. City of St. Paul, Minnesota

CASE: Handy Jones v. City of St. Paul, Minnesota, Civil No. 20-707 (JRT/ECW), U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. JUDGE: John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge. OPINION DATE: August 8, 2025.

BACKGROUND: Plaintiff Kim Diane Handy Jones, as trustee for the next of kin of Cordale Quinn Handy, brought this civil rights action (42 U.S.C. § 1983) after Handy was shot and killed in 2017 by St. Paul police officers. After litigation, the case proceeded to a bifurcated jury trial on liability and damages. The first jury found officer Nathaniel Younce liable and awarded $10 million in compensatory damages and $1.5 million in punitive damages. U.S. District Judge David S. Doty granted defendants' motion for remittitur (a court-ordered reduction of a jury's damages award), reducing compensatory damages to a maximum of $2.5 million while leaving liability and punitive damages intact. Handy Jones rejected the remittitur and elected a new trial on compensatory damages only. The case was reassigned to Judge Tunheim. A second jury awarded $3.25 million in compensatory damages: $1 million for past damages and $2.25 million for future damages.

POST-TRIAL MOTIONS: Handy Jones filed two motions: (1) a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment, seeking either reinstatement of the original $10 million compensatory award or, alternatively, a new trial; and (2) a renewed motion for attorney's fees, costs, and prejudgment interest under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

I. REINSTATEMENT OF ORIGINAL JURY AWARD — DENIED: The court declined to reinstate the first jury's $10 million compensatory award. The court found that doing so would amount to vacating both the second jury's verdict and Judge Doty's remittitur order, which Handy Jones had effectively accepted by proceeding to retrial. The court was unaware of any precedent authorizing such relief under Rule 59(e) and found the request unorthodox. The motion to alter or amend judgment on this ground was denied.

II. MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL — DENIED: Handy Jones alleged five errors at the second trial whose cumulative effect, she argued, denied her a fair trial.

(a) Gang Affiliation Questioning: Defendants cross-examined Handy Jones about her son's alleged gang affiliation, supported by two congressional press releases and a newspaper article provided to the court (not admitted into evidence). The court found that, even if the questioning lacked adequate good faith basis, Handy Jones failed to demonstrate that the jury's verdict was prejudicially influenced by those questions. The difference in damages between the two trials was attributable to many factors, and attributing it to gang affiliation questions would be speculative.

(b) Video Evidence: Defendants played a video of Handy's behavior on the night he was killed. The court had ruled pre-trial that the video was relevant and not unfairly prejudicial. The court reaffirmed that ruling post-trial: the video was relevant to wrongful death damages factors (life expectancy, habits, health, counsel and comfort to family), and the jury was specifically instructed that liability had already been determined and that the only issue was damages. Foundation objections were also rejected because the video had been authenticated at the first trial through testimony from Handy's then-girlfriend.

(c) Closing Arguments: The court evaluated three categories of alleged improper statements. (1) Golden rule argument: statements asking jurors whether they would look to Handy for counsel were found, in context, to be attacks on witness credibility rather than impermissible invitations to decide on the basis of personal interest. (2) Per diem argument: defendants contextualized damages by reference to gifts Handy gave family members, then urged the jury to increase that value to account for intangibles; the court found this was not a per diem argument. (3) Liability argument: the court agreed that the statement suggesting Handy might not have died if he had followed his mother's guidance was improper — but found it was a minor aberration in context, not emphasized by defendants, and not shown to have prejudiced Handy Jones.

(d) Jury Instructions: Handy Jones argued that instructing the jury on all twelve statutory wrongful death damages factors was misleading when she sought only non-economic damages. The court found the instructions were legally correct, did not mislead the jury, and that Handy Jones remained free to focus her arguments on non-economic damages.

(e) Conscious Pain and Suffering Damages: Handy Jones sought to add a newly available category of damages under Minn. Stat. § 573.02, subd. 1, for conscious pain and suffering Handy experienced before death. The court had previously denied this request under the law of the case doctrine, citing Judge Doty's ruling that because Handy Jones could have raised this before the first trial, it would not be permitted on retrial. Handy Jones's admission that she deliberately chose not to move to amend before the first trial undermined her argument that she was unaware of the legal change.

Cumulative error argument also rejected; only one improper statement was identified and it was not prejudicial.

III. ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS — GRANTED IN PART:

The court first addressed law of the case: Judge Doty had denied attorney's fees after the first trial because the contingency fee agreement would adequately compensate counsel. Judge Tunheim found that ruling clearly erroneous under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, which focuses on what the losing defendant must pay — not what the prevailing party owes its lawyers. Attorney's fees were therefore properly before the court.

Lodestar Calculation (reasonable hourly rate × reasonable hours): - Kenneth White: $390/hour (undisputed), 93.8 hours → $36,582 - Kevin O'Connor: requested $750/hour; court applied $550/hour (30 years' experience, ~80 trials, national civil rights practice; Minnesota market rate applies, not national); 15% hour reduction for vague/excessive billing → 1,282.86 hours × $550 = $705,573 - Paul Bosman: requested $550/hour; court applied $450/hour (17 years' litigation experience but only 5 in civil rights); 15% hour reduction → 803.25 hours × $450 = $361,462.50 - Brianna Long: requested $350/hour; court applied $275/hour (just over 5 years' experience, never filed notice of appearance, work akin to law clerk); 15% hour reduction → 80.83 hours × $275 = $22,228.25 - Nathaniel Cobbett: requested $400/hour; court applied $275/hour (less than 3 years' experience at time of work, never filed notice of appearance); 15% hour reduction → 120.66 hours × $275 = $33,181.50

Base lodestar total: $1,159,027.25

Upward Multiplier: The court applied a 1.5x multiplier (rather than the requested 2.5x), finding the case exceptional due to: (1) demonstrated difficulty obtaining local counsel — original counsel voluntarily dismissed a prior action, new counsel was retained and refiled just three weeks before the statute of limitations expired, and out-of-town counsel was required; (2) unusual factual difficulty — plaintiff claims this was the first case nationwide where a jury found liability for a police shooting of an armed decedent with no video evidence of the shooting.

Total attorney's fees awarded: $1,159,027.25 × 1.5 = $1,738,540.88

Costs: Handy Jones sought $49,387.22. The Clerk of Court had previously taxed only $480 after the first trial. The court upheld the $480 award, finding that most claimed costs were either non-recoverable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 (attorney travel, shipping, expert fees, miscellaneous 'other costs') or lacked documentation necessary to assess necessity (transcripts).

IV. PREJUDGMENT INTEREST — GRANTED IN PART:

The court awarded prejudgment interest under Minn. Stat. § 549.09 on the $1 million past damages award only (future damages are excluded by statute; punitive damages are also excluded). The court applied a 10% annual rate — the statutory rate for judgments against individuals — rather than the lower rate applicable to judgments against governmental entities, because the judgment was entered against Younce individually, not against the City (even though the City must indemnify him). Interest ran from February 20, 2020 (complaint filed in state court) through January 13, 2025 (jury verdict) — 1,789 days.

Calculation: $1,000,000 × 10% ÷ 365 = $273.97/day × 1,789 days = $490,132.33