Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01271/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01271-25/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Fair Labor Standards

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BENJAMIN C. OYARZO and NICHOLAS 

HART,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TUOLUMNE FIRE DISTRICT, KENNETH 

HOCKETT, and TONEY POWERS,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-01271-SAB

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT 

POWERS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS 

A MATTER OF LAW

(ECF No. 206)

Following the presentation of Plaintiff Hart’s case in chief, Defendant Toney Powers 

moved for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. Counsel for the parties argued the motion on December 13, 2013. 

Rule 50(a) provides that after “a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial 

and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to 

find for the party on that issue, the court may: (A) resolve the issue against the party; and (B) 

grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against the party on a claim or defense that, under 

the controlling law, can be maintained or defeated only with a favorable finding on that issue.” 

Defendant Powers argues that no reasonable jury could find that he had a role in Plaintiff 

Hart’s termination from Tuolumne Fire District based upon the evidence presented at trial. In 

this instance, as set forth on the record, the Court finds that there is sufficient evidence for a 

Case 1:11-cv-01271-SAB Document 209 Filed 12/16/13 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

reasonable jury to find that Defendant Powers actions played a role in Plaintiff Hart’s 

termination.

For the reasons set forth on the record during the hearing on Defendant Powers’ motion, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Powers’ motion for judgment as a matter of law is 

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 13, 2013 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01271-SAB Document 209 Filed 12/16/13 Page 2 of 2