Free Response in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

DANIEL G. KNAUSS United States Attorney District of Arizona SUZANNE M. CHYNOWETH Assistant U.S. Attorney Arizona Bar Number 6835 40 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Telephone: (602) 514-7500 Facsimile: (602) 514-7760 email: [email protected]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Alexander Jung, Plaintiff, v. John Potter, Postmaster General, U.S. Postal Service Defendant. CIV-04-0429-PHX-MHM DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE RE: COLLATERAL SOURCE

Defendant, John E. Potter requests that the Court deny Plaintiff's Motions in Limine that the Court preclude evidence or argument that Plaintiff received collateral source payments (Doc. # 92) based upon the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES In Title VII cases, the Court, not the jury, determines equitable remedies, such as front pay and back pay. The jury determines the compensatory damages to which Plaintiff is entitled, subject to the statutory cap ($300,000). See EEOC v. Dinuba Medical clinic, 222 F.3d 580, 588 (9th Cir. 2000). The Court, not the jury, decides what equitable relief should be awarded. See, e.g., Peyton v. DiMario, 287 F.3d 1121 (D.C. Cir. 2002); Hemmings v. Tidyman's Inc., 285 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2002); Hertzberg v. SRAM Corp. 261 F.3d 651 (7th Cir. 2001), cert denied, 122 S. Ct.1070 (2002). In awarding the appropriate equitable relief, the court is bound the jury's findings of fact. Lytle v. Household Manufacturing., Inc., 494 U.S. 545, 550 (1990) (where both legal and equitable relief is claimed, plaintiff has a right to a jury trial on all factual issues common to both); Fogg v. Ashcroft, 254 F.3d 103, 110 (D.C.Cir. 2001)(in determining equitable relief, the court must rely on the jury's decision about common factual issues). In some cases,
Case 2:04-cv-00429-MHM Document 107 Filed 03/16/2007 Page 1 of 2

1 the courts have directed that the jury to hear all evidence for the court's subsequent determination 2 about equitable relief,. See e.g., Hudson v. Chertoff, ___ F.Supp.2d ___, 2007 WL 478826, p. 3 8 (S.D.Fla.) (advisory jury verdict recommended an award of $220,000 for back pay; and the 4 court, in awarding the equitable remedies, adjusted the back pay award upward to $264,314). The 5 court may also hold a separate evidentiary hearing after the jury trial. Either way, the fact finder 6 is entitled to hear evidence about collateral source payments so that the Court may determine 7 whether these payments should be offset. See McLean v. Runyon, 222 F.3d 1150, n. 7 (9th cir. 8 2000) (discussion about whether district courts have discretion to deduct collateral benefits from 9 damage awards depending upon the type of benefit and claim.). 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 18 I hereby certify that on March 16, 2007, I electronically transmitted the attached 19 document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice 20 of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: 21 Rosval A. Patterson 22 777 E. Thomas Rd. Phoenix, AZ 85014 23 s/S. Chynoweth ________________________________ 24 Office of the U.S. Attorney 25 26 27 28 2
Case 2:04-cv-00429-MHM Document 107 Filed 03/16/2007 Page 2 of 2

Defendant therefore, respectfully requests that the Court deny Plaintiff's Motion In Limine regarding collateral source payments (Doc. #92). Respectfully submitted this 16th day of March, 2007. DANIEL G. KNAUSS United States Attorney District of Arizona s/Suzanne M. Chynoweth SUZANNE M. CHYNOWETH Assistant U.S. Attorney