Andrew Rutherford v. Jason McKissack

MEMORANDUM

Defendants Officer Jonathan Chin and the City of Seattle appeal following a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff Andrew Rutherford under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . The jury held for Rutherford on his Fourth Amendment claim, finding that Officer Chin exceeded the reasonable scope or duration of a stop pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). The district court denied defendants’ renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and awarded Rutherford one fifth of his requested attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

We review de novo a district court’s denial of a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. EEOC v. Go Daddy Software, Inc., 581 F.3d 951, 961 (9th Cir. 2009). We “must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party ... and draw all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor.” Josephs v. Pac. Bell, 443 F.3d 1050, 1062 (9th Cir.2006). We “may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence,” and we “must disregard all evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury is not required to believe.” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods.,…