LAPD Projectile Lawsuit Verdict: Federal Jury Awards $11.8 Million to Dodgers Fan Shot in the Eye During World Series Celebration

There was a certain electricity in downtown Los Angeles on the evening of October 27, 2020. People flocked to the streets surrounding Crypto.com Arena as they do when a city finally lets go after decades of waiting, following the Dodgers’ recent victory in their first World Series in thirty-two years. Among them was 22-year-old Cal State Long Beach student Isaac Castellanos, who was celebrating with friends without damaging anything or threatening anyone. By one in the morning, a police projectile had hit him in the right eye. His vision in that eye never came back.

After less than two hours of deliberation, a federal jury awarded $11.8 million in damages nearly six years after the incident. That decision was made quite quickly. Before they even enter the deliberation room, juries that move so quickly typically have already formed their opinions, and in this instance, the evidence provided ample justification for doing so. In order to disperse crowds, Castellanos’ legal team demonstrated that he was hit by a 37-mm “skip trace” launcher, which fires hard-foam projectiles that bounce off the ground and strike people in the lower body. According to LAPD policy, those weapons are designed to be fired up close. The round was fired from a distance of about 145 feet, according to evidence presented during the trial. By the time the projectile reached Castellanos, it had risen to eye level.

Key Information at a Glance

The case was actually won because of that discrepancy between policy and practice. Given that the officers were responding to what department officials described as violent groups vandalizing and breaking into downtown businesses, it’s possible that they were truly overburdened that evening. Large celebrations can be genuinely chaotic, and policing them is difficult, so that version of events might even be partially true. However, Castellanos claims that before officers moved in with their launchers, he did not hear a dispersal order. He claims he wasn’t acting improperly. And it’s clear that the jury found his account more credible than the department’s after hearing testimony and evidence for six days.

This situation feels particularly stark because of a particular detail. Castellanos had won $20,000 at an esports competition months prior to the World Series celebration night. He was a passionate gamer with genuine competitive skills and, according to his lawyers, a potentially lucrative future in a rapidly expanding industry. Not only did losing one eye cause him pain and psychological distress, but it also closed a door that had been truly open. It’s difficult to argue that the jury erred in taking that into account.

There is a sense that this decision is more of a milestone in a much longer dispute than a conclusion when considering the larger context of LAPD projectile cases over the past few years. Since 2020, the department has been the target of numerous lawsuits regarding its use of less-lethal weapons after officers used crowd control techniques in protest after protest. In January, a federal judge issued an injunction prohibiting the use of 40-mm launchers. However, over the course of six days, LAPD officers fired close to 1,400 less-lethal rounds during subsequent demonstrations against immigration enforcement policies. The department has continuously insisted that when objects were thrown at officers, force was required. That framing has been repeatedly contested by critics.

Since the start of 2020, the City of Los Angeles has paid over $1.1 billion in settlements and judgments; approximately half of that amount, or $435 million, is related to LAPD-related cases. These fiscal figures are not abstract. They are actual funds that could have been used for infrastructure, education, or the department’s own reform and training initiatives. When it comes to law enforcement, the cost of institutional inertia is typically borne by taxpayers who were not involved in the decisions made on their behalf.

Following the verdict, Pedram Esfandiary, Castellanos’ lawyer, expressed his hope that the size of the award would act as a wake-up call. In situations like this, that phrase is frequently used. It’s genuinely unclear if this decision will have any impact on the LAPD. Although the department has made some changes since 2020, such as restricting some weapons and pledging to look into use-of-force incidents, the pattern of lawsuits and settlements persists. It’s still unclear if the financial repercussions will be enough to spur the kind of internal change that would reduce the likelihood of similar verdicts in the future.

The jury award will almost certainly be appealed and still requires city approval. The final amount may differ significantly from $11.8 million because Castellanos’ lawyers have also filed to triple the damages under a California statute that permits higher awards in cases like this. The verdict itself—a 22-year-old at a street celebration, a projectile fired from the incorrect distance, and six years of litigation that concluded in less than two hours of deliberation—is already part of the city’s story, regardless of the final figure that is recorded. That timeline conveys a message. It’s difficult to ignore the specifics.