Free Motion for Judgment - 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

Kathleen L. Wieneke, Bar #011139 Jennifer L. Holsman, Bar #022787 JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C. 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Telephone: (602) 263-1700 Fax: (602) 200-7858 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants Griffin, Dunn, Lynde and Monson UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Teresa August, et al, Plaintiff, v. The City of Phoenix, et al, Defendant. NO. CV03-1892-PHX-ROS DEFENDANTS' RULE 50 MOTION REGARDING PUNITIVE DAMAGES

Defendants Griffin, Lynde, Dunn and Monson, through counsel, submit this Rule 50 Motion Regarding Punitive Damages. Because Plaintiff has failed to establish any basis for punitive damages and no reasonable jury could find in her favor on this issue, Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Judgment as a matter of law is appropriate only if "there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis" to find in favor of Plaintiff. FED.R.CIV.P. 50; see also Pavao v. Pagay, 307 F.3d 915, 918 (9th Cir.2002)(a motion for judgment as a matter of law should be granted only "if the evidence permits only one conclusion, and that conclusion is contrary to the jury's verdict."). As outlined in U.S. v. Vahlco Corp., 720 F.2d 885, 889 (5th Cir. 1983), "Rule 50(a) speaks of a motion for directed verdict at the close of the evidence offered by an opponent." This Rule "expresses the general law that after a party
1731270.1

Case 2:03-cv-01892-ROS

Document 241

Filed 01/10/2007

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

has rested, the case may be decided against it on the basis of the evidence the party itself introduced." Gonzalez v. LaConcorde Compagnie D'Assurances, 601 F.2d 606, 608 (1st Cir. 1979). However, it is within the power of the trial court to direct a verdict at any point in the trial where it is apparent that there is a complete absence of any question to send to the jury." Id. This is best articulated in the Court's holding in Best v. District of Columbia, 291 U.S. 411, 415 (1933), where the Court held that "there is no question as to the power of the trial court to direct a verdict for the defendant upon the opening statement of plaintiff's counsel where that statement establishes that the plaintiff has no right to recover." Federal courts have exercised the power to grant directed verdicts for the defense after the close of plaintiff's opening statement. Id. Plaintiff has made a claim of punitive damages against the Defendants. The standard for imposing punitive damages against an individual defendant was articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (1983). In Smith, the Supreme Court held that punitive damages can be awarded against an individual defendant under § 1983 only "when the defendant's conduct is shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent, or when it involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others." Id. As outlined in Best, where the opening statement by the plaintiff establishes no right to recover, "directed verdict" on the issue is appropriate. Here, similar to Best, Plaintiff's Opening Statement failed to present or even allude to any evidence of "malicious, wanton or oppressive" actions by the officers to support their punitive damages claim. Thus, because no reasonable jury could find in favor of Plaintiff on her punitive damages claim, Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on this issue. Based on the foregoing, the Defendants request that this Rule 50 Motion Regarding Punitive Damages be granted.
1731270.1

2

Case 2:03-cv-01892-ROS

Document 241

Filed 01/10/2007

Page 2 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
1731270.1

DATED this 10th day of January, 2007. JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C.

By /s/Jennifer L. Holsman Kathleen L. Wieneke Jennifer L. Holsman 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Attorneys for Defendants Griffin, Dunn, Lynde and Monson

Electronically filed and served this 10th day of January, 2007, to: ALL PARTIES ON ELECTRONIC SERVICE LIST COPY mailed this same date to: The Hon Rosalyn O. Silver United States District Court Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse, Suite 624 401 West Washington Street, SPC 59 Phoenix, Arizona 85003

BY

s/Peggy Sue Trakes

3

Case 2:03-cv-01892-ROS

Document 241

Filed 01/10/2007

Page 3 of 3