Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00305/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00305-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 “Often it appears . . . that a motion for judgment as a matter

of law made at the close of the evidence should be reserved for a

post-verdict decision. This is so because a jury verdict for the moving

party moots the issue and because a pre-verdict ruling gambles that a

reversal may result in a new trial that might have been avoided. For

these reasons, the court may often wisely decline to rule on a motion

for judgment as a matter of law made at the close of the evidence.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 advisory committee’s note.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODNEY WARD, )

) 2:04-cv-0305-GEB-DAD

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER

)

)

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, a ) 

Political Division of State of )

California; POLICE OFFICER )

D. BAKER; POLICE OFFICER EVANS; )

and POLICE OFFICER RAMIREZ, )

) 

Defendants. )

)

On February 28, 2007, at the close of evidence but before

the action was submitted to the jury, Defendants moved for judgment as

a matter of law on all of Plaintiff’s claims. The motion was

submitted for decision.1 The jury returned its verdict on March 7,

2007, deciding in favor of Defendants on all claims except Plaintiff’s

negligence claim. 

Case 2:04-cv-00305-GEB -DAD Document 88 Filed 03/08/07 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

27

28

2

Defendants argue in their motion that they are entitled to

judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiff’s negligence claim because:

“Plaintiff was comparatively at fault and . . . such comparative fault

on Plaintiff’s part was a legal cause of Plaintiff’s injuries”; “[t]he

testimony and evidence presented fails to meet the Plaintiff’s burden

of proof”; and “the Defendant Officers have the right to qualified

immunity.” (Mot. at 13.) However, Defendants have not shown that

they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiff’s

negligence claim or that they are entitled to qualified immunity. 

Therefore, Defendants’ motion is denied.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in

favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants Baker, Evans, Ramirez, and

the City of South Lake Tahoe on Plaintiff’s negligence claim; and in

favor of Defendants Baker, Evans, Ramirez, and the City of South Lake

Tahoe and against Plaintiff on all of Plaintiff’s remaining claims

against said Defendants. Defendant Baker is required to pay Plaintiff

$.01; Defendant Evans is required to pay Plaintiff $.01; Defendant

Ramirez is required to pay Plaintiff $.01; and the City of South Lake

Tahoe is required to pay Plaintiff $5,095.58.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 7, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00305-GEB -DAD Document 88 Filed 03/08/07 Page 2 of 2