Hoot

MEMORANDUM *

Henry Hoot appeals the district court’s denial of his alternative motions for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial, following a jury verdict finding that police officers unlawfully arrested Hoot but did not cause him any damage. Hoot contends that these findings are fatally inconsistent. Faced with the undisputed evidence that Hoot had to pay $250 for bail, we agree. Accordingly, we reverse the denial of Hoot’s motion and remand for a new trial.

When a jury returns a special verdict form with apparently inconsistent findings, a trial court must try to reconcile the findings, rejecting them only if there is no reasonable way to read them together. Pierce v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 823 F.2d 1366, 1370 (9th Cir.1987). The trial court appropriately attempted to reconcile the findings. It reasoned that, if the jury believed that Hoot’s own conduct was a substantial factor in his arrest, it could have consistently found both that the police falsely arrested Hoot and that the officers caused him no damage. This in *566 terpretation of the verdict, however, is not reasonable.

A finding of false arrest is possible only if the police officers who made the arrest did…