Pierce

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAJI PIERCE, et al., Case No. 21-cv-04325-AGT

Plaintiffs,

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’

v. MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT AS A

MATTER OF LAW, NEW TRIAL, OR

EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY REMITTITUR

DISTRICT, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 276, 2841 Defendants.

The Court denies defendants’ renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on plaintiffs’ retaliation-based claims. See Dkt. 284. As plaintiffs detail in their opposition to the motion, see dkt. 286 at 11–23, a reasonable jury had “a legally sufficient evidentiary basis” to find for plaintiffs on the elements of their retaliation-based claims. Shafer v. Cnty. of Santa Barbara, 868 F.3d 1110, 1115 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1)). The Court denies defendants’ motion for a new trial. See Dkt. 284. The jury’s retali- ation verdicts were not “contrary to the clear weight of the evidence.” Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting another source). There was no “miscarriage of justice.” Experience Hendrix L.L.C. v. Hendrixlicensing.com Ltd, 762 F.3d 829, 842 (9th Cir. 2014). And the damages awards, while…