N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
C R YSTAL HOLM ES, Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. R OSALINA HAR

R IS, in he r individual and offic ia l c a

pa c ity , De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt,
and DEAN HAR

R IS, an individual; e t a l., De fe nda n ts. No. 19-56200 D.C . No. 2:18-c v-03739-PSG-E
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Philip S. Gutierre z , C hie f Distric t Judge , Pre siding

Subm itte d April 16, 2021 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia 

# FIL ED
APR 20 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).B e fore : M . SM ITH a nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd STEELE, * ** Distric t Judge
. R osa lina Ha rris a ppe a ls the de nia l of he r m otion for a ne w tria l, re ne we d
m otion for judgme nt a s a

m a tte r of la

w, a nd a punitive -dam a ge s award e nte re d
a ga inst he r. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. Harris brought a

m otion unde r R

ule 50(a ) of the Fe de ra l R ule s of C ivil Proc e d ure be fore the c a se wa s subm itte d to the jury , but fa ile d ra i se he r c l a im tha t she is prote c t e d by

qua lifie d im

m unity in tha t m o tion. R athe r, she ra ise d this c la im for the first tim e in he r re ne we d m otion for judgme n t a s a m atte r of la

w unde r R

ule 50(b) of the Fe de ra l R

ule s of C ivil Proc e dure . Ha rris a rgue s tha t she c ould not
ra ise he r qua lifie d im

m unity c la im e arlie r be c a

use the jury

first ha d to re solve fa c t ua l c onflic t s, but we have he ld tha t “ [w] he n a

qua lifie d im

m unity c la im c annot be re solve d be fore tria l due to a fa c tua l c onflic t,” the de fe n da nt m u st still raise qua lifie d im

m unity c la im in a R ule 50(a ) m otion in order “ to pre se rve the le ga l issue for de te rm ination a fte r the jury re solve s the fa c tua l c onflic t.” Tortu v . Las Ve gas Me tro. Polic e De

p’t , 556 F.3d 1075, 1083 (9th C ir. 2009). B e c a u se Harris fa ile d to pre s e rve he r qua lifie d im m unity c la im , it is wa ive d.

* * * The Honora

ble John E. Ste e le , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the M iddle Distric t

of Florida , sitting by

de s igna tion. 2Suffic i e nt e vide nc e supports the jury ’ s ve rdic t. C onstruing the e v ide nc e in the l ight m ost fa

vora ble to the n onm oving pa

rty , Re e s e v . C nty . of Sac rame nto , 888 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th C ir. 2018); E.E.O.C . v . Pape Lift, Inc

. , 115 F.3d 676, 680 (9th C ir. 1997), thejury c ould ha ve c onc lude d tha

t Ha rris wa s a c t ing unde r c olor of la w during theinc ide nt ba s e d on Ha rris’ s c a ll to theAlta de n a She riff’ s Station in whic h she ide ntifie d he rse lf a s a la w e nforc e m e nt offic e r, a

n d Ha rris’ s disc ussion with Serge ant Ne b e l be fore he a sse sse d the sc e ne , i n a m anne r m a de possible only

be c a use of he r sta

tus a s a la w e nforc e m e nt offic e r. The jury c ould
a lso ha ve c onc lude d tha

t the re wa s no proba

ble c a use tha t Holm e s ha d c om

m itte d a
c rim e , be c a

use the offic e rs on the sc e ne who first inve stiga t e d the inc ide nt a

nd inte rvie we d the witne sse s re a c h e d tha t c onc lusion. Although Se rge ant Ne be l
a dvise d the offic e rs to a

rre st Holm e s, the jury

c ould ha ve c onc l ude d tha

t Se rge ant Ne be l ha d

no a dditiona l fa c t

ua l ba sis for re a c hing tha

t c onc lusion. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de c lining to order a ne w tria l ba se d

on a line of que stions tha

t Holm e s’ s c ounse l a ske d Ha rris c onc e rning inde m nific a tion of a

ttorne y s ’ fe e s. The c ourt susta ine d Ha rris’ s obje c tions to those que stions, a

nd Ha rris did not a

nswe r the m . The una

nswe re d que stions do not
c onstitute pre judic ia l m i sc onduc t justify ing a ne w tria l on da

m a ge s. C oope r v . Fire stone Tire& Rubbe r C

o . , 945 F.2d 1103, 1107 (9th C i r. 1991). Nor wa s a ny
3othe r e vide nc e or inform a tion re ga rding inde m

nific ation pre se nte d to the jury
. C f. In re E x x on Valde

z , 229 F.3d 790, 798 (9th C ir. 2000). Fina lly , we a ffirm

the award of punitivedam a ge s. The punitive -dam a ge s
award wa s not unc o nstitutiona lly e xc e ssive , be c a

use it is undispute d

on a ppe a l tha t Harris’ s c onduc t wa s re pre he n sible , the ra tio of punitive to c om pe nsatory dam a ge s (le ss tha n 2 to 1) is we ll within a

c onstitutiona

lly pe rm issiblelim it, ne ithe r pa rty
c ite s c o m pa ra ble c a se s, a

nd Ha rris’ s a bility to pa y is a ne utra l fa c tor be c a

use it is unknown whe the r the C ounty will inde m

nify he r. Se e BMW

of N . Am., Inc . v . Gore , 517 U.S. 559, 574–84 (1996); se e also Rodrigue z v . C o unty of Los Ange le

s , 891 F.3d 776, 806 (9th C ir. 2018). 1 AFFIRM E D.

1 Holm e s ’ s m otion to dism iss or sum

m a rily a ffirm , Dkt. No. 30, is de nie d. 4