James v. Sheklanian, et al., No. 1:2008cv01943 - Document 94 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION Regarding Plaintiff's 85 Motion for New Trial signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 08/25/2010. (Flores, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
James v. Sheklanian, et al. Doc. 94 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 1:08-cv-01943-OWW-GSA JOHN JUSTIN JAMES, 9 MEMORANDUM DECISION REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL (Doc. 85) Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 12 SHANT SHEKLANIAN, 13 Defendants. 14 I. 15 INTRODUCTION. 16 On April 28, 2010, the jury returned its verdict in this 17 action. The jury found that Madera Police Officer Shant Sheklanian 18 (“Defendant”) unlawfully used excessive force in the arrest of John 19 James (“Plaintiff”) in violation of Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment 20 rights under the U.S. Constitution. 21 also found that Defendant’s Fourth Amendment violation was not the 22 cause of harm or damage to Plaintiff. 23 instructions on the verdict form, the jury made no finding as to 24 damages. (Doc. 79). (Id.). However, the jury Corresponding to 25 On May 28, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking: (1) to set 26 aside the judgment; (2) to grant judgment as a matter of law; (3) 27 to amend the judgment; or (4) a new trial. 28 /// (Doc. 85). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 Defendant filed opposition to Plaintiff’s motion on June 17, 2010. (Doc. 89). II. 3 FACTUAL BACKGROUND.1 4 On January 26, 2007, at or about 11:20 p.m., an altercation 5 arose inside the Back Street Bar & Grill in Madera (“the Bar”), 6 California. 7 several individuals began fighting in the street. Plaintiff exited 8 the Bar and attempted to intervene in a confrontation between one 9 of his friends and another person. 10 Approximately 20 to 30 patrons exited the bar, and A few moments later, several Madera Police Officers arrived at the scene. 11 Although the circumstances surrounding Defendant’s use of 12 force on Plaintiff are subject to dispute, it is undisputed that 13 Defendant tackled Plaintiff, punched Plaintiff after tackling him, 14 and later utilized his taser on Plaintiff. 15 arrested, placed in the back of a patrol car, and taken to a local 16 hospital where he was treated for his injuries. 17 approximately $466 dollars for medical care related to the injuries 18 he sustained on January 26, 2007. Plaintiff was then Plaintiff paid 19 Plaintiff testified that the taser strike was “very painful” 20 and that he had “a lot of pain” in his left shoulder for about 21 three weeks after the attack. 22 Plaintiff’s chest area and where not removed until Plaintiff 23 arrived at the hospital. Plaintiff also sustained a laceration and 24 a knot above his left eye. Plaintiff stated that he experienced 25 limitations with respect to his ability to lift items over two Two taser barbs where lodged in 26 1 27 28 The facts material to the instant motion are those relevant to the issue of whether it is possible to reconcile the jury’s finding of excessive force with the jury’s finding that Defendant did not cause Plaintiff harm. This factual history is limited accordingly. 2 1 pounds, to lay down with his arms in certain positions, and to 2 engage in recreational activities. 3 and pain in Plaintiff’s shoulder persisted. 4 III. LEGAL STANDARD. 5 6 At the time of trial, tension Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 provides, in pertinent part: 7 If a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue, the court may: (A) resolve the issue against the party; and (B) grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against the party on a claim or defense that, under the controlling law, can be maintained or defeated only with a favorable finding on that issue 8 9 10 11 12 Fed. R. Civ. P. 50. A renewed motion for judgment as a matter of 13 law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) is properly 14 granted "if the evidence, construed in the light most favorable to 15 the nonmoving party, permits only one reasonable conclusion, and 16 that conclusion is contrary to the jury's verdict.” E.g. Harper v. 17 City of L.A., 533 F.3d 1010, 1021 (9th Cir. 2008)(citation 18 omitted). "A jury's verdict must be upheld if it is supported by 19 substantial evidence, which is evidence adequate to support the 20 jury's conclusion, even if it is also possible to draw a contrary 21 conclusion." Id. 22 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 states in part, "A new 23 trial may be granted . . . in an action in which there has been a 24 trial by jury, for any of the reasons for which new trials have 25 heretofore been granted in actions at law in the courts of the 26 United States." Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(1). Historically recognized 27 grounds include, but are not limited to, claims "that the verdict 28 3 1 is against the weight of the evidence, that the damages are 2 excessive, or that, for other reasons, the trial was not fair to 3 the party moving." Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Duncan, 311 U.S. 243, 4 251 (1940). 5 jury’s assessment of the evidence, the trial court may grant a new 6 trial only if the jury's verdict was against the clear weight of 7 the evidence. 8 556 F.3d 1075, 1083 (9th Cir. 2009). Where a Rule 59 motion is based on a challenge to the See, e.g. Tortu v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't, 9 A district court may set aside a jury’s verdict and order a 10 new trial where the jury’s findings are so inconsistent that they 11 cannot be reconciled with each other. 12 F.3d 998, 1005 (9th Cir. 2002). 13 a court asks not whether the verdict necessarily makes sense under 14 any reading, but whether it can be read in light of the evidence to 15 make sense. 16 court remand for a new trial. 17 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Gallick v. Baltimore & O.R.R. Co., 372 U.S. 18 108, 110 (1963)). 19 in light of the jury instructions. 20 Appx. 437, 439 (9th Cir. 2008) (unpublished) (citing Floyd, 929 21 F.3d at 1399); Zhang v. Am. Gem Seafoods, Inc., 339 F.3d 1020, 1038 22 (9th Cir. 2003). 23 Id. White v. Ford Motor Co., 312 In an inconsistent verdict case, Only in the case of fatal inconsistency may the Floyd v. Laws, 929 F.2d 1390, 1396 A court determines the meaning of the verdict Borck v. City of L.A., 303 Fed. IV. DISCUSSION. 24 Plaintiff contends that in light of the jury instructions and 25 evidence presented at trial, the jury’s finding that Defendant used 26 excessive force on Plaintiff but that Plaintiff’s excessive force 27 was not the cause of harm to Plaintiff is fatally inconsistent. 28 The jury was provided with the following causation instruction: 4 1 2 3 4 In order to establish that the act of Officer Shant Sheklanian deprived the plaintiff of his particular rights under the laws of the United States Constitution as explained in other instructions, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the act was so closely related to the deprivation of the plaintiff’s rights as to be the moving force that caused the ultimate injury. 5 6 (Doc. 77, Instruction 15). 7 The causation instruction accurately informed the jury of the 8 causation requirement. Causation is established where the evidence 9 demonstrates that a defendant’s action was a substantial factor in 10 bringing about the harm underlying a plaintiff’s claim. E.g., 11 Whiteley v. Philip Morris, Inc., 117 Cal. App. 4th 635, 701 (Cal. 12 Ct. App. 2004) (discussing substantial factor standard); Hardison 13 v. Bushnell, 18 Cal. App. 4th 22, 26 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) (“simple 14 test for determining whether the cause-in-fact component of legal 15 cause exists: Was the actor's conduct ‘substantial factor in 16 bringing about the harm[?]’”); accord Harpe v. City of L.A., 533 17 F.3d 1010, 1027 (9th Cir. 2008) (causation established where 18 defendants action was “moving force behind the injury of which the 19 plaintiff complains”). 20 plaintiff suffered a detrimental change to the body. 21 California, Inc. v. Superior Court, 41 Cal. App. 4th 744, 755 (Cal. 22 Ct. App. 1995). 23 the injury resulting from such force that it is the legal cause of 24 the harm sustained. 25 Automobile Club of Southern California, 47 Cal. 4th 302, 308 (Cal. 26 2009) (discussing causation element of assault and battery). Harm is established by evidence that a Macy's Use of force on another is so closely connected to See Delgado v. Interinsurance Exchange of 27 The evidence presented at trial indicated that Defendant was 28 responding to a reported fight in a public street outside the Bar. 5 1 Defendant, upon arrival, saw no fighting among people gathered in 2 the street. Defendant saw Plaintiff talking to two or three 3 individuals. Defendant tackled Plaintiff to the ground, punched 4 him in the face, and utilized a taser on Plaintiff. 5 presented at trial also indicated that Plaintiff suffered pain as 6 a result of Defendant’s use of force, and that Plaintiff incurred 7 medical bills at a local hospital emergency room in connection with 8 the physical injuries he sustained during Defendant’s use of force, 9 including removal of taser darts from his chest. nor did any presented, 11 Plaintiff’s physical injuries. 12 at trial, the jury’s finding that Defendant did not cause Plaintiff 13 harm cannot be reconciled with the jury’s finding that Defendant 14 violated 15 unreasonable seizure under color of law. Fourth regarding No evidence was 10 Plaintiff’s exist, The evidence alternate causes of In light of the evidence presented Amendment right to be free from 16 Defendant’s opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial 17 contends that the jury could have reasonably found that Defendant 18 used 19 damages. 20 found no causation. This was clear error. That defendant suffered 21 physical and mental pain and sustained physical injuries as a 22 result of Defendant’s use of force is undisputed. 23 evidence presented that would allow the jury to conclude that 24 Defendant was not the cause of such pain and injuries. 25 fundamental inconsistency in the jury’s verdict is its finding that 26 Defendant used excessive force, but that such force did not cause 27 harm to Plaintiff. 28 Whether, in the jury’s mind, the act which rose to the level of excessive force but that Plaintiff was not entitled to The jury did not reach the issue of damages because it There was no The The jury’s verdict is legally irreconcilable. 6 1 excessive force was Defendant’s tackling, punching, or tasing of 2 Plaintiff is immaterial. 3 force is inseparable from the pain, medical treatment, and injury 4 caused thereby, the jury’s finding that Defendant did not cause 5 Plaintiff harm renders the jury’s verdict fatally inconsistent and 6 requires granting of Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. See Floyd, 7 929 F.2d at 1396. Because Defendant’s use of excessive ORDER 8 9 For the reasons stated, IT IS ORDERED: 10 1) Plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict is DENIED; 11 2) Plaintiff’s motion to amend the judgment is DENIED; 12 3) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to vacate the judgment; and 13 4) Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial is GRANTED. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: hkh80h August 25, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
