Arekat

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 19 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S . CO U RT OF AP PE A LS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MANSOUR AREKAT, individually and No. 06-16074 in his capacity as chief operating officer and owner of Areµat Pacific Security Inc. D.C. No. CV-03-00710-BMK a Hawaii corporation dba A.P.I. Security, Inc.,

MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

LEE D. DONOHUE; CITY AND

COUNTY OF HONOLULU; LETHA DE

CAIRES; MIKE MIRANDA; RAYMOND

ANCHETA; JOHN DOES 1-25,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Barry M. Kurren, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 13, 2008 San Francisco, California

Before: REINHARDT, FISHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.**

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. * * Due to the death of Judge Brunetti, Judge Callahan was drawn to replace him on the panel. Plaintiff-Appellant Mansour Areµat appeals the district court's denial of his

renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law in the…

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent. The majority, after properly noting that we do not reweigh the evidence when reviewing the denial of a motion for new trial, proceeds to do exactly that.

The majority’s description of the evidence is a combination of misdirection and re-weighing of the evidence. It starts by commenting on Arekat’s “calm and cooperative” attitude when arrested and his unexceptional subsequent behavior. Of course, the defendants in detaining Arekat did not rely on his behavior when or after he was detained.

The majority then attempts to explain away Arekat’s suspicious behavior by noting that he owned a security company and characterizing his interviews with the FBI as not containing any “act, attempt or threat.” However, reasonable minds could consider Arekat’s ownership of a security company with access to firearms a reason to be concerned with Arekat’s aberrant behavior. Moreover, the FBI’s report did describe a threat: it stated that “Arekat alluded that he might kill [ ] if this harassment continued and he slept with his ‘finger on the trigger.’ ” Indeed, it appears that Arekat’s own statements to the FBI were one of the reasons the FBI reported Arekat to…

*161 MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff-Appellant Mansour Arekat appeals the district court’s denial of his renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law in the underlying § 1983 action. See Fed R. Civ. P. 50(b). We review de novo the district court’s order denying his motion. See Art Attacks Ink, LLC v. MGA Entm’t Inc., 581 F.3d 1138, 1143 (9th Cir.2009). A movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law if the evidence presented at trial, when viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, would not permit a reasonable juror to find in the nonmoving party’s favor. See Torres v. City of Los Angeles, 548 F.3d 1197, 1205-06 (9th Cir.2008). We do not “weigh the evidence” favoring the movant against that adduced by the nonmoving party but rather “simply ask whether the [defendants] ha[ve] presented sufficient evidence to support the jury’s conclusion.” Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 1021 (9th Cir.2008).

Defendants took Arekat into custody without a warrant and without any other judicial process, and transported him to a medical facility for a psychiatric examination pursuant to a mental health statute that provides for the “[ejmergency examination and…