Jury Awards $11.8 Million to Man Blinded by LAPD Projectile During 2020 Dodgers World Series Celebration

A federal jury has delivered its verdict: the City of Los Angeles must pay $11.8 million to Isaac Castellanos, a 22-year-old college student who was permanently blinded in one eye when LAPD officers fired less-lethal projectiles into a crowd during the Dodgers’ 2020 World Series celebration. The jury on Thursday unanimously found that Officers Cody MacArthur and Jesse Pineda acted negligently, used excessive force, and violated Castellanos’ constitutional rights when they fired 37mm less-lethal launchers toward the crowd he was standing in. The verdict closed what has been a nearly six-year legal battle after Castellanos permanently lost vision in one eye.

The verdict, reached April 16, 2026, is the largest jury award stemming from LAPD crowd control actions since 2020 — and it lands as the department faces a wave of new lawsuits and court-ordered restrictions on the very weapons that cost Castellanos his sight.

Quick Case Snapshot

Plaintiff	Isaac Castellanos
Defendants	City of Los Angeles; LAPD Officers Cody MacArthur and Jesse Pineda
Court	U.S. District Court, Central District of California
Case Number	2:22-cv-1165
Incident Date	October 28, 2020
Verdict Date	April 16, 2026
Verdict Amount	$11.7–$11.8 million
Claims	Excessive force; negligence; violation of constitutional rights
Jury Decision	Unanimous — officers found negligent, used excessive force, violated plaintiff’s rights
Next Steps	City Council approval required; appeal expected; plaintiff’s attorneys seeking to triple award under state law

The Night That Changed Everything: What Happened on October 28, 2020

Isaac Castellanos was 22 years old and a student at Cal State Long Beach when he drove to downtown Los Angeles with a group of friends on October 27, 2020 — the night the Dodgers clinched their first World Series in 32 years, defeating the Tampa Bay Rays in six games.

What followed was supposed to be a moment of joy. It became one of the defining tragedies of that era of LAPD crowd control.

Castellanos said he and his friends were peacefully celebrating around 1 a.m. the next morning when LAPD officers confronted the crowd. LAPD officials have claimed the officers were responding to violent groups that were vandalizing and breaking into downtown businesses.

But Castellanos says he had done nothing wrong. Now 22, his lawsuit alleges the LAPD used unreasonable force and fired into the crowd without warning. “This is hurting really, really bad, probably the worst, like, pain I ever felt,” Castellanos said.

The end result was Castellanos getting hit in the right eye by a less-lethal projectile, permanently losing vision in that eye. He was struck by a 37-mm “skip trace” launcher — a weapon that fires hard foam projectiles intended to bounce off the ground and strike targets in the lower body.

He regained some blurry peripheral vision in the days that followed, but never fully recovered. “In the direct middle, it is completely black,” he said.

Related article: Coach Stormy Wellington Settles FTC Complaint Over MLM Income Claims Here Is the Full Story, Both Sides

What the Evidence Showed: Fired From the Wrong Distance

The technical evidence at trial cut to the heart of the case. Under LAPD policy, the weapons are supposed to be used at close range. Castellanos’ attorneys showed evidence that the rounds were fired from roughly 145 feet away — enough distance to cause the projectile to rise to eye level.

According to Castellanos’ attorney Monique Alarcon, the crowd at that intersection was peaceful, already dispersing, and received no warning before officers fired. Castellanos had turned to pull a friend in the right direction when he was struck. She argued that officers cannot justify force against one group based on unrest elsewhere in the city, emphasizing that each crowd must be assessed on its own conditions.

The trial consisted of six days of testimony and evidence, followed by less than two hours of deliberation by the jury — a strikingly quick verdict that signals how clearly the jurors assessed the evidence.

What the Jury Decided — and What It Could Cost the City

The jury unanimously found that LAPD Officers Cody MacArthur and Jesse Pineda acted negligently, used excessive force, and violated Castellanos’ constitutional rights when they fired 37mm launchers into a crowd and caused his injury.

The award of over $11.7 million is not just the largest Castellanos could hope for — it is the largest verdict of its kind. An LAist analysis of data from the City Attorney’s office found the city has already paid more than $19 million since 2020 on liabilities stemming from LAPD crowd control actions — but this verdict comes at a much higher cost to the city than any other case over that time.

Castellanos’ attorneys have pushed to triple the jury award under a state law that allows for increased damages in such cases. If that motion succeeds, the total exposure could climb toward $35 million. As with most jury awards, the amount will probably be appealed and any potential settlement would still need approval from city leaders.

The Career That Was Taken: Esports, Ambition, and Loss

The size of this verdict is not accidental. Beyond the physical injury — permanent vision loss in one eye — Castellanos lost something less tangible but equally real: a career he had been building.

Before the injury, he had been gaining momentum as an Esports athlete and streamer, testifying that he had recently won a $40,000 prize with a teammate at a competition and had won a qualifying match to play for a professional team.

His attorney, Pedram Esfandiary, noted that the incident deprived him of opportunities in the burgeoning esports industry. Castellanos maintained that he had not heard any dispersal orders prior to being struck by the projectile.

While Castellanos got some accommodations from his college and was able to graduate on time, he testified that his Esports career ended with his injury. Speaking after the verdict, Castellanos said he is focused on mending relationships and his mental health, which suffered from the stress caused by his injury.

Sanofi’s — Sorry — LAPD’s Defense and Ongoing Dispute

LAPD officials maintained throughout the litigation that officers were responding to a genuine public safety threat. The department’s position was that elements within the crowd near Crypto.com Arena were engaged in vandalism and property destruction, and that officers were attempting to restore order to a chaotic situation.

The jury was unconvinced. The unanimous verdict — on every claim, including the constitutional rights violation — represents a comprehensive rejection of the department’s justification for the force used against Castellanos specifically.

The city is expected to appeal. City leaders must also formally approve the payout before it is distributed.

This Is Not an Isolated Case: A Pattern of LAPD Projectile Injuries

The Castellanos verdict does not stand alone. It is the most expensive chapter yet in a years-long story of LAPD less-lethal weapon use and the legal accountability that followed.

The lawsuit is the latest in a wave of litigation over the LAPD’s use of projectile weapons since 2020, when LAPD officers injured people at multiple events — including mass demonstrations over the murder of George Floyd, celebrations for the Dodgers and the L.A. Lakers’ 2020 NBA championship, and during protests over the removal of a homeless encampment at Echo Park Lake.

Other cases in this wave include:

• In 2023, a jury awarded $3.75 million in damages to Asim Jamal Shakir Jr., a protester shot twice with hard-foam projectiles fired by the LAPD during 2020 demonstrations. The jury ruled that the LAPD was negligent when its officers fired the less-lethal devices at Shakir.
  
• Also in 2023, in the first verdict of its kind, a federal jury found LAPD officer Peter Bueno personally liable for shooting protester Deon Jones in the face with a projectile, awarding Jones $375,000 and finding that Bueno violated Jones’ civil rights.
  
• A Los Angeles protester, Benjamin Montemayor, whose testicle was injured when an LAPD officer shot him with a hard-foam projectile during a 2020 protest received a $1.5 million settlement — at the time the largest payout to arise from lawsuits accusing LAPD of excessive force during 2020 protests.
  

And the cases keep coming. Marshall Woodruff claims LAPD fractured his cheekbone and ruptured his right eye while he was photographing a protest on June 14, 2024, and that he is now permanently blind in that eye. Jesus Javier Islas says he was blinded in one eye by a less-lethal projectile allegedly fired by LAPD at a protest on January 31, 2026. Lawyers for Islas are asking $100 million in damages from the LAPD and the City of Los Angeles.

Courts Have Stepped In: Federal Restrictions on LAPD Weapons

The lawsuits have not just produced payouts — they have forced legal reforms.

In January 2026, the LAPD ordered officers to stop using 40mm launchers during protests after a federal judge found the department was in contempt of a previous ruling limiting their use. Officers received a message stating: “Effective IMMEDIATELY the 40mm SHALL NOT be used during any CROWD CONTROL situation.”

In her ruling, U.S. District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall sided with a contempt motion filed by attorneys for Black Lives Matter-Los Angeles, finding that the department had violated previous court restrictions by using projectile weapons to disperse crowds at last summer’s mass demonstrations against immigration enforcement.

However, enforcement of these restrictions has proven difficult. A federal judge issued an injunction in January against the use of 40mm launchers, but the LAPD has deployed other types of crowd control weapons in subsequent protests. The city has sought to overturn court-ordered restrictions, with Los Angeles deputy city attorneys arguing that the bans were impractical and overly broad, and put officers at risk of hesitating in chaotic situations.

What This Verdict Means — For LAPD, for LA, and for Civil Rights

The $11.8 million verdict is not just a dollar figure. It is a statement from eight jurors about what happened on a downtown Los Angeles street in the early hours of October 28, 2020.

Attorney Pedram Esfandiary expressed hope that the jury’s decision would signal the need for police reform regarding the use of less-lethal weapons. Castellanos’ attorneys say they hope the jury’s decision will lead LAPD to reform their policies and prevent more people from getting injured.

The financial math is also becoming harder to ignore. At more than $19 million paid out before this verdict — and now an additional $11.8 million on top — the cost of LAPD’s crowd control approach is being measured not just in injuries but in public dollars. The $100 million claim filed on behalf of Jesus Islas, who was blinded at a protest in January 2026, signals that the financial exposure is nowhere near finished.

As Castellanos’ attorney said after the verdict: “Unfortunately, we have to leave it up to these lawsuits to be the driver of change because apparently the LAPD won’t change otherwise.”

What Happens Next

City Council approval: The eight-figure sum requires approval from city leaders before it is paid.

Potential appeal: The city is widely expected to appeal the verdict amount, meaning the final payout could be reduced, increased, or restructured through negotiations.

Triple-damages motion: Castellanos’ attorneys are seeking to triple the award under California law. If granted, the total could approach $35 million.

More lawsuits ahead: With new cases involving 2025 and 2026 protest injuries already filed — and a $100 million claim pending — the City of Los Angeles faces a continuing legal reckoning over its use of less-lethal weapons for crowd control.

Policy pressure: Each verdict increases political pressure on LAPD leadership and the Los Angeles City Council to implement permanent, enforceable reforms to crowd control protocols — not just temporary bans already being challenged in court.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who is Isaac Castellanos and what happened to him?

 Isaac Castellanos was a 22-year-old Cal State Long Beach student when he drove to downtown Los Angeles to celebrate the Dodgers’ 2020 World Series win. He was struck in the right eye by an LAPD less-lethal projectile fired into the crowd, permanently losing vision in that eye.

How much did the jury award and why is it so significant?

 The jury awarded more than $11.7 million — the largest verdict to date stemming from LAPD crowd control actions since 2020. The city has already paid more than $19 million in prior cases, but this verdict comes at a much higher cost than any other case over that period.

What weapon was used and was it within LAPD policy?

 Castellanos was struck by a 37-mm “skip trace” launcher, which fires hard foam projectiles intended to bounce off the ground and strike targets in the lower body. LAPD policy says such weapons are to be used at close range, but evidence showed they were fired from approximately 145 feet away — allowing the projectile to rise to eye level.

What did the jury find? 

The jury unanimously found that Officers Cody MacArthur and Jesse Pineda acted negligently, used excessive force, and violated Castellanos’ constitutional rights when they fired 37mm launchers into a crowd and caused his injury.

Is the money paid immediately? 

No. The award must be approved by city leaders and could be changed during the appeal process. Castellanos’ attorneys are also pursuing additional damages under state law that could increase the total.

Are there other similar cases still pending? 

Yes. Marshall Woodruff claims LAPD fractured his cheekbone and ruptured his right eye while photographing a protest in June 2024 and is permanently blind in that eye. Jesus Javier Islas, blinded at a January 2026 protest, has filed a claim seeking $100 million in damages from LAPD and the City of Los Angeles.

Last Updated: April 17, 2026

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The jury’s verdict is subject to post-trial motions, appeal, and City Council approval. Reporting is based on publicly available court records, verified news sources, and official statements.