Imperiale

MEMORANDUM **

Larry Imperiale contends that the district court erred by (1) granting the City of San Diego’s Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a) motion for judgment as a matter of law as to Imperiale’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cause of action alleging unlawful search and seizure; (2) not allowing Imperiale’s counsel to ex *14 amine an adverse party with leading questions; and (B) issuing a qualified immunity jury instruction. We reverse with respect to the district court’s grant of the City’s Rule 50(a) motion for judgment as a matter of law, but we affirm as to the other issues.

Judgment as a matter of law is proper only if “there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue.” Fed. R.Civ.P. 50(a). Reviewing this issue de novo and with all respect to the district court, the evidence in this case would permit a jury to determine that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to stop Imperiale’s car. The key piece of evidence is the fact that a valid registration extension was placed where it belonged in the rear window of Imperiale’s hatchback. Although the officers say they did not see the extension until the car was stopped, enough evidence exists…