A federal judge in Anchorage has paved the way for a jury trial in a wrongful death lawsuit brought against the city by the family of Shane Tasi, fatally shot by an Anchorage police officer in June 2012.

Following the ruling by the judge, the family's attorney called for the city to settle rather than prolong the court battle.

U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason issued an order last week ruling on all pending motions for summary judgment from the case's plaintiffs as well as its multiple defendants – the Municipality of Anchorage, the Anchorage Police Department and three officers. All parties asked judge Gleason to rule on certain issues without a full trial.

Many of the family's claims survived the rulings, and local attorney Phillip Weidner argued the facts Gleason outlined favor verdicts against the defendants.

Weidner likened what he called APD's police misconduct in the shooting to police killings elsewhere.

"We ask and hope that Mayor (Ethan) Berkowitz, the new administration and chief of police, and APD will do so in this case to partially rectify the conduct of the previous administration and a prior police officer," Weidner said in a phone interview.

But Municipal Attorney Bill Falsey said a trial was needed to resolve the issues.

"She (Gleason) is saying, as a matter of law, we need a trial to establish what the facts are and then a jury can decide whether that results in any liability to the municipality," Falsey said.

Officer Boaz Gionson shot Tasi, 26, three times while responding to 911 calls about a commotion at Tasi's home in Mountain View. Police said Tasi refused to put down a broomstick after being told four times to stop.

City officials cleared Gionson of criminal wrongdoing. Gionson left the Anchorage Police Department in December 2013 to work for a law enforcement agency out of state, said spokesperson Jennifer Castro.

Tasi's family sued the city and police in November 2013 for upwards of $1 million to pay for emotional and financial distress. They argue Gionson fired unwarranted additional shots at Tasi and kept the family from seeing Tasi in his final moments. They alleged the responding officers were improperly trained.

Judge Gleason recounted the plaintiffs' interpretation of the case in her order. It says Tasi went to a party at his cousin's home earlier in day. Tasi used Spice, smoked marijuana and drank alcohol. By the time Tasi and his family left the party, Tasi was "very intoxicated," according to the order.

After prompting calls to the police department for yelling at people on the street while in transit, Tasi began breaking furniture in his apartment. Three people tried to intervene when they heard the noise, according to the order.

The three men hailed officer Gionson as he drove by the apartment building. Gionson left his vehicle, leaving his pepper spray behind; he was not armed with a Taser, the opinion says.

Gionson was standing behind a roughly 3-foot high fence when he shot at Tasi, Gleason wrote.

Arguments surrounding the family's excessive force claims centered on whether officer Gionson was entitled to immunity that would shield a public official from damages for civil liabilities. The court was asked to consider "whether a reasonable officer would have believed that the suspect (Tasi) was an imminent threat to the officer or a bystander," the opinion says.

Looking at the allegations in a light most favorable to the family — a legal standard for a pretrial ruling — Gleason said Tasi did not appear to be an imminent threat. Video of the shooting was released, but it remains unclear if Tasi even looked at or saw the officer. The three men who intervened at the apartment had retreated as Tasi came toward them, she said.

"Mr. Tasi was not an imminent threat to Officer Gionson when Officer Gionson made the decision to shoot," Gleason wrote in suggesting that the actual facts were a matter that a jury could best determine.

Gionson failed to make an argument for immunity based on several facts, Gleason wrote. Tasi was wielding only a broomstick, he was not facing or charging an officer, the three men were in retreat, the officer had a "tactical advantage" of being behind a fence and he made no warning that deadly force was going to be used, she wrote.

Officers Joshua Vance and James William also remain defendants in the case. Tasi's wife, Jean Taualo-Tasi, left the apartment when she heard the shots, and the officers, who arrived on scene immediately after the shooting thought the family did not need to witness the emotional scene. Taualo-Tasi and her children were detained in a laundry room for about 10 minutes, according to the opinion.

A reasonable jury could find the detention was unreasonable, Gleason decided.

The wife "was not suspected of committing any crime and she had not witnessed the shooting. Ms. Taualo-Tasi was prevented from going to see her husband in the final moments of his life and prevented from following him to the hospital in order to be near him," Gleason wrote, adding their constitutional right to be free from unreasonable seizure was violated when they were held in the laundry room.

Still, several of the judge's findings favored the municipality's arguments. There was insufficient evidence for a jury to find the municipality liable for deficient training on imminent threats. No evidence suggests APD and policymakers were on notice that the training in place caused officers to violate people's constitutional rights, Gleason wrote.

Additionally, Tasi's family tried to remove certain evidence from the trial. Some evidence will be permitted, such as facts that point to Tasi's intoxication that may be relevant to appropriate fault. But Tasi's prior arrests and convictions before the shooting were found only marginally relevant. The judge said his criminal record would be left out of the arguments to be heard before a jury.

A trial in the case is set for April.