Rodriguez

Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles

Good Law
96 F. Supp. 3d 990·2014 WL 8396787·2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183381
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaMay 29, 2014Case No. 10-6342-CBM (AJWx)California9,126 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Marshall, J.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS (1) FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW; (2) MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT AS TO MOVING DEFENDANTS AND FOR A NEW TRIAL FOR THESE DEFENDANTS AFTER RESOLUTION OF INTERLOCUTORY QUALIFIED IMMUNITY APPEALS; (3) TO VACATE PUNITIVE DAMAGES; and (4) FOR A NEW TRIAL PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. 59(A).

Before the Court are four post-trial motions filed by Defendants:

1. Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b) (“JMOL”). (Docket No. 637.)

2. Motion to Vacate Judgment and for New Trial (“Motion to Vacate”). (Docket No. 638.)

*996 3. Motion to Vacate Punitive Damages or Remittitur or New Trial on Punitive Damages (“Punitive Damages Motion”). (Docket No. 640.)

4. Motion for New Trial Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(a) (“59(a) Motion”). (Docket No. 639.)

On April 1, 2014, the Court held oral arguments on these motions and orally denied Defendants’ Motion to Vacate, 59(a) Motion, and Punitive Damages Motion from the bench with written orders to follow. (Docket No. 672.) Upon consideration of the papers and arguments submitted, the Court also denies Defendants’ JMOL. The below order addresses each of Defendants’ post-trial motions in…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.