Medina
Medina v. Metropolitan Interpreters & Translators, Inc.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Miller, J.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW; DENYING MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL; AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS; and DENYING EX PARTE APPLICATION TO STAY EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT
Defendant Metropolitan Interpreters and Translators, Inc.' (“Metropolitan”) moves for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Fed.R.CiwP. 50, for a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59, and to stay execution of the judgment. Plaintiffs Fernando Medina, Eduardo Ruvalcaba, Richard Gonzalez, Francisco Bates, Mafia Nielsen, Melany Duran, Lilia Palomino, Elizabeth Sanchez, and Maribel Taylor (collectively “Plaintiffs”) oppose both motions and separately move for an award of attorneys’ fees and cost’s. Metropolitan opposes Plaintiffs’ motion. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), the court finds the matters presented appropriate for resolution without oral argument. ‘ For the reasons set forth below, the court denies the Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law, denies the Rule 59 motion for new trial, awards Plaintiffs attorneys’ fees and *1174 costs in the amount of $916,998.87 and $21,824.15, respectively, -and denies the ex parte application to stay execution of the judgment as…