Mohammadkhani

MEMORANDUM **

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial on Plaintiffs claims against University Medical Center (“UMC”). It was not unreasonable for the district court to find $250,000 in compensatory damages for retaliation to be against the clear weight of the evidence presented at trial. See Oltz v. St. Peter’s Cmty. Hosp., 861 F.2d 1440, 1452 (9th Cir.1988).

2. No reasonable jury could find, based on the evidence presented, that Plaintiff met her burden of demonstrating that UMC’s proffered, non-retaliatory reasons for her transfer were pretextual. See Steiner v. Showboat Operating Co., 25 F.3d 1459, 1464-65 (9th Cir.1994). We therefore affirm the district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiffs retaliation claim.

3. Anthony preserved his qualified immunity defense by raising it in a pre-trial motion for summary judgment, which the district court denied because genuine issues of material fact remained. A court *288 “must postpone the qualified immunity determination” where, as here, “there is a genuine dispute as to ... ‘what the [defendant] ... did,’ ” Sloman v. Tadlock, 21 F.3d 1462, 1467 (9th Cir.1994) (quoting Act…