Hooper

Hooper v. County of San Diego

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaMarch 27, 20243:07-cv-01647California5,456 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. INTRODUCTION

19 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Deborah Hooper’s (“Plaintiff”) timely1 filed 20 Motion for Partial Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict,2 or in the Alternative, a New 21 Trial. (“Mot.,” ECF No. 494). Defendants County of San Diego and Deputy Sheriff Kirk 22 23 A motion must be filed within 28 days of entry of final judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b). Plaintiff brings this motion on November 30, 2021, and judgment was entered on November 2, 2021. (“Judgment,” ECF No. 490). Although captioned as a Partial Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, “[e]ffective December 31, 1991, Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was amended[, and a] motion for a ‘directed verdict’ is redesignated as motion for ‘judgment as a matter of 28 Terrell (“Deputy Terrell” or “Defendant Terrell”) (collectively, “Defendants”) filed a Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion, (“Opp’n,” ECF No. 507), and Plaintiff filed a Reply in support of her motion, (“Reply,” ECF No. 508). Upon consideration of the moving papers and the applicable law, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.