Free Order - 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

MARY CSANYI,

) CV-03-1987-PHX-JAT ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ORDER ) ) REGIS CORPORATION; SUPER CUTS, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ______________________________________ ) In its Memorandum, the Court of Appeals ordered, "we vacate the judgment as to the FMLA claim and remand for a determination of appropriate remedies under 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a)." Doc. #129. Based on this mandate, the Court ordered the parties to file a joint status report indicating their proposal for how this Court should evaluate these remedies. The parties have now filed a status report and the Court has determined that the parties materially disagree as to how the Court should proceed. To begin, Defendant's suggestion that this Court "mediate" this dispute is rejected. The Court is aware of no rule of civil procedure that would allow for a forced mediation in this case. Next, Plaintiff's suggestion that this Court hold a second bench trial is presumptively rejected. This Court does not read the Court of Appeals' mandate as suggesting that this Court should take additional evidence. Instead, the Court reads the mandate as requiring this Court to determine the appropriate remedies based on the existing evidence. Further, from

Case 2:03-cv-01987-JAT

Document 133

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 1 of 3

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

the status report, it appears that the only remedy sought by Plaintiff is money damages. And the only remaining dispute between the parties is the amount of money damages. Thus, presumptively, the Court, as the finder of fact following a bench trial, will assess the amount of money damages to be paid to Plaintiff based on the damages evidence presented at the original trial. However, in the procedural format to be defined below, Plaintiff may attempt to overcome the presumption that damages will be assessed based on the prior evidence. To overcome this presumption, Plaintiff must indicate what additional evidence she wishes to submit, and explain why such evidence both was not and could not have been submitted in the original trial. Specifically Plaintiff must show a nexus between the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' mandate and her reason for not previously submitting this evidence, for example, if some point of the mandate calls into question an evidentiary ruling at the trial. However, barring this showing, Plaintiff should plan that the Court will determine damages based solely on the evidence submitted previously. Therefore, Plaintiff must comply with the remainder of this Order on the assumption that the Court will not be taking new evidence on damages. To assist the Court in determining the amount of damages, Plaintiff shall file a motion for a determination of damages.1 In her motion, Plaintiff should not address her requests for attorney's fees, costs, interest, or liquidated damages, as these items can all be sought postjudgment after the Court determines the amount of actual damages. To that end, Plaintiff should comply with the Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in filing a motion seeking each of these additional items after this Court enters judgment on actual damages.

If Plaintiff still wishes to seek a continuation of the bench trial to submit more evidence, Plaintiff should make all arguments for why a supplemental bench trial is mandated in this motion. Plaintiff is reminded, however, that a supplemental bench trial would be an opportunity for both sides to potentially submit additional evidence on the FMLA claim, if appropriate, and would require a further pretrial conference and pretrial order consistent with the Court of Appeals' opinion.
Case 2:03-cv-01987-JAT Document 133 -2Filed 06/12/2008 Page 2 of 3

1

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

In her motion Plaintiff should address the following three requests for damages that she made in her status report: 1) reimbursement of medical expenses in the amount of $3,800; 2) lost wages in the amount of $15,667; and 3) required medical treatment that Plaintiff was unable to obtain in the amount of $56,140. Plaintiff shall include in her motion both how these damages arise from her FMLA claim, and citation to specific evidence in the record to support her calculation of damages. In its response to this motion, Defendant shall both justify its position as to why a second bench trial on damages is not mandated (assuming Plaintiff still seeks a second trial), and alternatively, assuming no second trial will be granted, cite to specific evidence in the record from the original trial to either contradict Plaintiff's calculation of damages or support Defendant's calculation of damages. Neither party is permitted to submit new evidence regarding damages that is not in the record of the original trial with its motion or response. Plaintiff may reply to Defendant's response within the time set by the Local Rules. Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for a determination of damages is due by July 14, 2008. DATED this 11th day of June, 2008.

Case 2:03-cv-01987-JAT

Document 133

-3Filed 06/12/2008

Page 3 of 3