Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02986/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02986-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

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 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JANIS TRULSSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN DISTRICT 

ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:11-CV-02986 KJM DAD 

ORDER 

Defendant San Joaquin County’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law 

(“JMOL”) is reflected on the court’s docket as unresolved. (ECF 123.) As explained below, the 

court affirms its oral denial of the motion. 

Plaintiff Janis Trulsson filed this employment discrimination case on November 9, 

2011. (ECF 1.) Through various pre-trial motions and rulings, the action was eventually 

narrowed so that the case proceeded to trial on the following claims only: (1) gender 

discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; (2) gender discrimination 

in violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (3) retaliation in 

violation of the FEHA; and (4) failure to prevent retaliation and discrimination in violation of the 

FEHA. 

The jury trial commenced on March 10, 2014. (ECF 109.) At the conclusion of 

the evidence, defendant’s counsel made an oral JMOL motion under Federal Rule of Civil 

Case 2:11-cv-02986-KJM-DAD Document 146 Filed 04/24/14 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 

27 

28 

2

Procedure 50(a); plaintiff’s counsel argued in opposition, and defendant’s counsel argued in 

reply. (See ECF 119.) The court denied defendant’s JMOL motion at that time orally. 

Concurrent with its making the oral motion, defendant filed the written motion still showing as 

pending, raising the same arguments as made in court. 

So that the record is clear, the court’s previous denial of defendant’s JMOL motion 

extends to denial of the written motion as well. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 23, 2014. 

 

Case 2:11-cv-02986-KJM-DAD Document 146 Filed 04/24/14 Page 2 of 2