Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00166/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00166-2/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

----oo0oo----

JAIME HUGHES, MARY CORONADO, 

AUDREY MILLS, VIRGINIA

CARDOZA, KAREN DELUCCHI,

JOLENE GIBSON, BARBARA

HEDRICK, SUZANNE HENNING, WILL

JOHNSON, LINDA MAGER, MARIA

MACIAS, CARL MORROW, CANDICE

PRICE, VIRGINIA RUIZ, CARMEN

SIMMONS, TREASA TREDWELL,

MARINA TORRES, SHEILA WALL,

LORIE WEISS and KATHI LYNN

CORONADO,

NO. CIV. S 03-0166 MCE DAD

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER

CITY OF STOCKTON and DOES 1

through 100, in their

individual capacities,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Case 2:03-cv-00166-MCE -DAD Document 291 Filed 10/03/05 Page 1 of 4
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

All further references to “Rule” or “Rules” are to the 1

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless otherwise noted.

Plaintiffs’ counsel previously moved for JMOL under 50(a). 2

That motion, which was denied, was a prerequisite for bringing

the present Rule 50(b) motion. Janes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,

279 F.3d 883, 886-87 (9 Cir. 2002). th

2

Through this motion, Plaintiffs seeks Judgment as a Matter

of Law (“JMOL”) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b). 1 2

JMOL is proper only if “the evidence, construed in the light

most favorable to the nonmoving party, permits only one

reasonable conclusion, and that conclusion is contrary to that of

the jury.” White v. Ford Motor Co., 312 F.3d 998, 1010 (9 Cir. th

2002). To justify relief through JMOL, there must be a “complete

absence of probative facts to support ... [the] conclusion

reached so that no reasonable juror could have found for ...

[the] nonmoving party.” Eich v. Board of Regents for Central

Missouri State Univ., 350 F.3d 752, 761 (8 Cir. 2003). JMOL th

should not be granted unless there is an overwhelming amount of

evidence in favor of the Plaintiffs as moving parties, and fair

minded persons could not have arrived at a verdict against them. 

See Meloff v. New York Life Ins. Co., 240 F.3d 138, 145 (2d Cir.

2001); Strickland Tower Maintenance, Inc. v. American Tel & Tel.

Comm., Inc., 128 F.3d 1422, 1426 (10 Cir. 1997). In assessing th

the propriety of JMOL, the Court may not make credibility

determinations or weigh the evidence. City Solutions, Inc. v.

Clear Channel Communications, 365 F.3d 835, 841 (9 Cir. 2004). th

The circumstances of the instant case do not approach these

rigorous criteria, and do not justify the extraordinary relief

Case 2:03-cv-00166-MCE -DAD Document 291 Filed 10/03/05 Page 2 of 4
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

3

represented by JMOL. First, despite Plaintiffs’ apparent

assertion to the contrary, the standard outlined above makes it

clear that the Court cannot reweigh the evidence offered at

trial. The fact that evidence was presented, from which the jury

could have based its verdict, is enough to uphold the verdict in

the face of a requested JMOL. Here, the jury heard evidence

that pursuant to a November 2000 agreement between labor unions

representing Plaintiffs and Defendant City of Stockton, regularly

scheduled overtime pay was folded into Plaintiffs’ base salary. 

The jury also received evidence that Plaintiff’s would have

received a 23.7 percent increase in their base salary were

overtime not so included, as well as evidence that Plaintiffs’

salaries after the 2000 agreement were in fact more than they had

been prior to the agreement, when overtime had been expressly

reflected in their pay calculations. Given that evidence, the

Court cannot conclude, as it must to justify JMOL, that no

reasonable jury could have found in favor of the City of

Stockton. 

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:03-cv-00166-MCE -DAD Document 291 Filed 10/03/05 Page 3 of 4
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

Because oral argument would not be of material assistance, 3

this matter was deemed suitable for decision without oral

argument. E.D. Local Rule 78-230(h).

4

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law is

accordingly DENIED.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 3, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-00166-MCE -DAD Document 291 Filed 10/03/05 Page 4 of 4