Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01997/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01997-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Recovery of IRS Tax

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRUCE A. TISON, Executor/

Administrator for the 

ESTATE OF CHARLES G. TISON,

NO. CIV. S-04-1997 LKK/GGH

Plaintiff,

v.

 O R D E R

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendants.

 /

Pending before the court is plaintiff’s renewed motion for

judgment as a matter of law. A party may renew its motion for

judgment as a matter of law,

[i]f for any reason, the court does not grant a motion for

judgment as a matter of law made at the close of all the

evidence, the court is considered to have submitted the

action to the jury subject to the court's later deciding the

legal questions raised by the motion. The movant may renew

its request for judgment as a matter of law by filing a

motion no later than 10 days after the entry of judgment.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b). A renewed motion for judgment as a matter

Case 2:04-cv-01997-LKK -GGH Document 104 Filed 02/27/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

of law is proper when the evidence construed in the light most

favorable to the non-moving party permits only one reasonable

conclusion as to the verdict and that conclusion is contrary to the

jury's verdict. See Air-Sea Forwarders, Inc. v. Air Asia Co., 880

F.2d 176, 181 (9th Cir. 1989). When evaluating such a motion, “the

court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving

party, and it may not make credibility determinations or weigh the

evidence.” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S.

133, 150 (2000). 

In the case at bar, the evidence is not contrary to the jury’s

verdict. Dr. Henry Go, Charles Tison’s physician, testified that

Mr. Tison was generally healthy. See Trial Transcript (“TT”) pg.

329-333. Other witnesses also testified that Mr. Tison was able

to work, and able to manage his finances. See, e.g., testimony of

Toshiko Hamada, TT pg. 200-202. The jury decided to believe this

testimony in finding that plaintiff was not disabled as defined by

the Internal Revenue Code. The plaintiff bore the burden at trial,

and, as evidenced by the verdict, he failed to meet his burden. 

For these reasons, as well as the reasons set forth in the

government’s opposition brief, the court finds that the evidence

is not contrary to the jury’s verdict. Accordingly, plaintiff’s

motion for judgment as a matter of law is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: February 27, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-01997-LKK -GGH Document 104 Filed 02/27/07 Page 2 of 2