A federal judge dismissed three of five civil counts brought against former President Donald Trump and his codefendants in a Jan. 6 case related to the death of Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick.
The lawsuit was brought by Sandra Garza, the longtime ex-girlfriend of Mr. Sicknick, who died of a stroke following the Jan. 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol, during which he was pepper sprayed. Ms. Garza is also the representative of Mr. Sicknick’s estate.
In total, the court dismissed one count of wrongful death and two counts of negligence per se against President Trump and the two men, Julian Khater and George Tanios, who clashed with police on Jan. 6.
The ruling means that Ms. Garza can proceed with a claim against President Trump under D.C.’s Survival Act, which allows a representative of Mr. Sicknick’s estate to take legal action on his behalf after his death.
Dismissed: Wrongful Death
Judge Mehta tossed Ms. Garza’s wrongful death claims due to her lack of statutory standing because she “was not Officer Sicknick’s spouse.”
Ordinarily, the Wrongful Death Act allows the spouse or domestic partner of a person who has died to recover the financial loss they suffer as a result of the death.
However, this does not apply to Ms. Garza, as she did not file a declaration of domestic partnership in D.C. or “any other jurisdiction,” per the 12-page ruling.
Judge Mehta wrote that despite being named as Mr. Sicknick’s “domestic partner” in his will, that allegation “is not sufficient to confer statutory standing under the Wrongful Death Act.”
“Her contention that a ‘domestic partnership’ was established simply by Mr. Sicknick having identified Garza as his ‘domestic partner’ in his will finds no basis in the plain text of the statute,” Judge Mehta wrote. “Garza therefore cannot recover the damages she personally seeks under the Act.”
Furthermore, the couple had split up months prior to his death, according to court records.
Dismissed: Negligence Per Se
Moreover, the judge rejected two other counts alleging negligence per se.Regarding the first count, the judge noted that the court had already ruled in another Jan. 6 case that D.C.’s anti-riot statute “cannot sustain a claim of negligence per se.”
Judge Mehta adopted that ruling, dismissing the first claim of negligence per se.
“Plaintiff’s other negligence per se claim fares no better,” the judge wrote.
Judge Mehta noted that for the second claim to work, the law being broken must “impose [] specific guidelines to govern [a defendant’s] behavior,” that is, specifically tell people what they can or cannot lawfully do.
However, the D.C. anti-riot statute is more general in its prohibition of certain conduct. For this reason, the second count of negligence per se was dismissed.
Survival Act Claim to Proceed
Turning to Ms. Garza’s Survival Act claim, the judge allowed the claim of conspiracy to violate civil rights to proceed.The Survival Act allows the estate of a deceased person to take a course of legal action that the deceased person might have taken if they were alive.
Mark Zaid, a lawyer for Ms. Garza, said they’re pleased the judge allowed part of their lawsuit to proceed. “We are now considering our next step options, to include deposing former President Trump,” Mr. Zaid said in a statement.
Finally, the judge declined to rule on a defense made by Mr. Tanios who argued that Mr. Sicknick was injured in the line of duty, per the Professional Rescuers Doctrine, which prevents those engaged in rescue work as the job from recovering damages for injuries sustained on the job.
“It is premature to rule on this argument,” Judge Mehta wrote.
Death From Natural Causes
Mr. Sicknick was present at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 when protesters disrupted the certification of the 2020 election.Ms. Garza, representing Mr. Sicknick’s estate, filed a $10 million civil suit against President Trump and the two men, Julian Khater and George Tanios, alleging “a host of claims” related to Mr. Sicknick’s death.
The D.C. medical examiner’s office concluded that Mr. Sicknick died from a series of strokes due to “natural causes” and that “all that transpired” on Jan. 6 “played a role in his condition.”
False reports that Mr. Sicknick had died after being struck in the head by a fire extinguisher were spread by legacy media.
Judge Mehta has tossed a number of claims from these plaintiffs and allowed others to proceed.
President Trump’s lawyers have argued that it fell within his official duties to ensure that claims of election fraud were investigated and that he was therefore immune from liability for his actions.
Judge Mehta disagreed, finding that President Trump’s attempts to challenge the 2020 election results did not lie within the “outer perimeter” of his official duties as president and instead “entirely concern his efforts to remain in office for a second term.” A D.C. Circuit Court upheld the judge’s decision, allowing the lawsuits to move forward.
The question of immunity will now be decided by the Supreme Court.
