Judge Dismisses Part of Lawsuit Against Trump filed by Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick's Partner
ICARO Media Group
A federal judge has dismissed a portion of the lawsuit filed against former President Donald Trump by Sandra Garza, the partner of Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick who tragically passed away after responding to the January 6, 2021, attacks on the Capitol. The lawsuit accused Trump and two rioters, Julian Khater and George Tanios, of being directly responsible for Sicknick's death.
Garza's lawsuit, filed last year, sought $30 million in damages from Trump and the two rioters, alleging wrongful death. However, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Garza lacked "statutory standing" to file, and therefore, she cannot personally recover the damages sought under the Act. Consequently, the Wrongful Death Act claim was dismissed.
In his ruling, Judge Mehta noted that Garza's argument that a "domestic partnership" was established because Sicknick mentioned her as his "domestic partner" in his will did not find a basis in the plain text of the statute. As a result, the damages sought by Garza personally were invalidated.
The court documents also revealed that Sicknick suffered two strokes and ultimately died of natural causes one day after his heroic efforts to defend the Capitol in 2021. Judge Mehta dismissed two counts of negligence that Garza had brought against Trump.
On the other hand, the claims brought against the former president under Washington, D.C.'s Survival Act were allowed to move forward. The Survival Act permits a "legal representative" of the deceased to file a claim on their behalf after their death, as stated in the court documents. Judge Mehta rejected Trump's argument that he had immunity from the lawsuit, referencing a prior ruling by District Judge Tanya Chutkan, which concluded that Trump did not have presidential immunity from lawsuits related to the insurrection.
The dismissal of certain portions of the lawsuit has narrowed the scope of litigation, but the claims under the Survival Act will continue to be pursued. This legal development will likely extend the duration of the case as it moves forward.