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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREA GORDON,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE BAY AREA AIR QUALITY

MANAGEMENT DISTRICT,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C08-3630 BZ

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

Plaintiff Andrea Gordon seeks a new trial following a

jury verdict for the defendant. Plaintiff claims that a new

trial is appropriate because 1) the verdict was against the

weight of evidence and 2) because improper evidence was

presented to the jury.

Relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) is

only appropriate if the jury verdict was “against the clear

weight of the evidence.” Landes Constr. Co. v. Royal Bank of

Canada, 833 F.2d 1365, 1371 (9th Cir.1987).

On the one hand, the trial judge does not sit to approve

miscarriages of justice. His power to set aside the

verdict is supported by clear precedent at common law

and, far from being a denigration or a usurpation of jury

trial, has long been regarded as an integral part of

Case 3:08-cv-03630-BZ Document 193 Filed 07/19/10 Page 1 of 3
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

trial by jury as we know it. On the other hand, a decent

respect for the collective wisdom of the jury, and for

the function entrusted to it in our system, certainly

suggests that in most cases the judge should accept the

findings of the jury, regardless of his own doubts in the

matter.... If, having given full respect to the jury's

findings, the judge on the entire evidence is left with

the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been

committed, it is to be expected that he will grant a new

trial.

Id. at 1371-72 (quoting 11 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal

Practice and Procedure § 2806, at 48-49 (1973) (quotation

marks and footnotes omitted)).

Having considered all of the evidence presented at trial,

I find that the weight of the evidence supports the jury’s

verdict, including the findings that plaintiff did not prove

her retaliation or discrimination claims.

Plaintiff’s argument that the Court committed prejudicial

error in admitting evidence of plaintiff’s job performance is

similarly unpersuasive. Plaintiff characterizes Ms.

Schkolnick’s testimony that plaintiff “lost” $400,000 as

character evidence and that should have been excluded. 

Plaintiff however opened the door to evidence regarding her

job performance when she testified repeatedly that she was an

exemplary employee and that the district harbored an improper

and unfounded agenda against her. The testimony which Ms.

Schkolnick offered contradicted plaintiff’s claims regarding

the quality of her job performance, and was properly admitted.

///

///

///

///

Case 3:08-cv-03630-BZ Document 193 Filed 07/19/10 Page 2 of 3
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

It is therefore ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for a new

trial is DENIED. 

Dated: July 19, 2010

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\GORDON\ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL.wpd

Case 3:08-cv-03630-BZ Document 193 Filed 07/19/10 Page 3 of 3