Opinion ID: 4524553
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: threat to the lives and safety of the

Text: public, the police, or the plaintiff. - 12 - of law on the unlawful entry claim in light of the jury verdict in their favor. On July 20, 2018, the Castagnas moved for a new trial, arguing that the jury's finding that Defendants Kaplan, Edwards and Jean are not liable to Plaintiffs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the unlawful entry into Christopher Castagna's home, or, at the very least, into Christopher Castagna's bedroom, is against the law, the weight of credible evidence and constitutes a miscarriage of justice.6 On January 17, 2019, the district court granted the Castagnas' motion for a new trial, finding that the verdict is against the law as to the warrantless entry into the home and that the warrantless entry on the facts at trial is not protected by qualified immunity. The court said the entry into the bedroom claim was merely a subset of the entry into the home claim, thereby saying it was not an independent claim. Because the only issues still to be resolved at that point in the proceedings were legal issues, instead of holding a 6 The Castagnas also argued that a new trial was warranted because the Court improperly instructed the jury regarding disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace and in her closing, Defendants' counsel made improper references to Plaintiff Christopher Castagna being a racist, even though there was no evidence at trial that demonstrated that he was a racist, and the Court's curative instruction to the jury failed to cure the error. The district court rejected these arguments, and the plaintiffs have not appealed these denials. - 13 - new trial, the court instructed the Castagnas to move orally under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52 for the court to amend the judgment so that Edwards, Jean, and Kaplan would be liable for the unlawful entry claim. Without conceding their liability, the three officers moved for a ruling that the Castagnas had not proven a right to any damages beyond nominal damages. On June 28, 2019, the district court amended its judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52 so that it reflected a judgment in favor of Christopher and Gavin and against Edwards, Jean, and Kaplan as to the § 1983 unlawful entry claim. The court awarded the two brothers one dollar in nominal damages from each of the three officers. The court did not disturb any of the other jury verdicts. This timely appeal followed.7 7 Edwards, Jean, and Kaplan make two arguments on appeal that we do not reach because we hold that they were entitled to qualified immunity. First, they argue that the Castagnas made a strategic choice not to bring a motion for judgment as a matter of law, and in fact, were the parties to initially suggest a jury instruction on exigent circumstances. When the district court gave the instruction, they did not object. Having made these strategic choices, the officers argue, it was an abuse of discretion for the district court to then grant the Castagnas a new trial to save them from the consequences of those choices. Specifically, the officers argue that the district court misapplied the legal standards for granting a new trial by conducting a purely legal analysis, rather than one keyed to the trial's fairness. In their view, the fact that the district court declined to actually hold a new trial and instead heard oral cross-motions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52 only highlighted why the trial was fundamentally - 14 -