Reginald Bingham v. City of Las Vegas

MEMORANDUM

After trial, a jury found by special verdict that Plaintiff Reginald Bingham did not suffer from a “disability” within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”). We affirm.

1. Because Plaintiff “did not file a pre-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50, ... [he] has not preserved a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.” F.B.T. Prods., LLC v. Aftermath Records, 621 F.3d 958, 962 (9th Cir.2010)(internal quotation marks omitted). For the reasons discussed below, we also hold that the district court did not commit plain error in denying Bing-ham’s post-trial Rule 50 motion. See Image Technical Servs., Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 125 F.3d 1195 , 1212 (9th Cir. 1997).

2. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Plaintiffs motion for a new trial because there was substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict. See DSPT Int’l, Inc. v. Nahum, 624 F.3d 1213, 1218 (9th Cir.2010).

Plaintiff alleged that he was substantially limited in the major life activities of working and performing manual tasks. See 42 U.S.C. § 12102 (1). To be…