Ava Wales v. City of Zachary

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [09-31201 Affirmed ] Judge: CDK , Judge: CES , Judge: PRO Mandate pull date is 12/27/2010 [09-31201]

Ava Wales v. City ofCase: 09-31201 Zachary

Document: 00511313123 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/06/2010

Doc. 0

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
December 6, 2010 N o . 09-31201 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

A V A WALES, P la in t iff ­ Appellee v. C I T Y OF ZACHARY, D e fe n d a n t ­ Appellant

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Middle District of Louisiana N o . 3:08-CV-408

B e fo r e KING, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* A v a Wales won a $45,000 judgment against the City of Zachary (the " C ity " ) in a jury trial on her claim of sex discrimination. The City appeals the d is t r ic t court's denial of its Rule 50(a) motion for judgment as a matter of law, a n d contests the damages award as excessive. Because the City failed to renew it s motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b), and failed to move fo r a new trial or for remittitur following the jury's verdict, we affirm the ju d g m e n t of the district court.
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-31201 Document: 00511313123 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/06/2010

No. 09-31201 I . Facts and Procedural History W a le s , formerly a police officer for the City, filed suit against the City a lle g in g sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1 9 6 4 , 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17. Specifically, Wales claimed that certain a c t i o n s of the Zachary Police Department's assistant chief constituted sexual h a r a s s m e n t and had created a hostile work environment. The district court conducted a brief jury trial. At the close of Wales's e v id e n c e , the City moved for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of C iv il Procedure 50(a). The district court denied this motion.1 The City then r e s t e d without presenting any additional evidence. T h e jury returned a verdict in favor of Wales and awarded her $45,000 in d a m a g e s . The City did not renew its motion for judgment as a matter of law u n d e r Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) following the jury's verdict, nor did it move for remittitur or for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. The district court entered judgment on the jury's verdict and the City appealed. II. A. Analysis

D e n ia l of Rule 50(a) Motion

T h e City's failure to renew its motion for judgment as a matter of law after t h e jury's verdict is fatal to its appeal of the district court's denial of its motion. In Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394 (2006), the S u p r e m e Court held that when a party fails to renew its pre-verdict motion for j u d g m e n t as a matter of law as specified in Rule 50(b), there is "no basis for r e v ie w " of that party's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the v e r d ic t on appeal. Id. at 407; see also Downey v. Strain, 510 F.3d 534, 543­44 (5 t h Cir. 2007) ("Unitherm establishes that a party who wishes to appeal on
We note that the asserted grounds for the City's Rule 50(a) motion are not in the record. Instead of a transcript of that portion of the trial, there is a brief docket annotation and a minute entry stating that the court denied the City's pre-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law. R. 3, R. 89.
1

2

Case: 09-31201 Document: 00511313123 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/06/2010

No. 09-31201 g r o u n d s of insufficient evidence must make a Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law after the jury's verdict, even when the party has previously made a Rule 50(a) motion."). Because the City failed to make a Rule 50(b) motion, t h e r e is no basis for this court to review the City's challenge to the sufficiency of t h e evidence supporting the jury's verdict. See Unitherm, 546 U.S. at 407; a c c o r d Downey, 510 F.3d at 544. B. D a m a g e s Award

T h e City separately challenges the $45,000 damages award as excessive. Because the City failed to raise this argument in any post-verdict motions, it is n o t properly before us. See Verdin v. C & B Boat Co., 860 F.2d 150, 156­57 (5th C ir . 1988) (stating that "a court of appeals cannot review a jury award of d a m a g e s as excessive or inadequate without a trial court ruling on remittitur "); B u e n o v. City of Donna, 714 F.2d 484, 493­94 (5th Cir. 1983) ("It is welle s t a b l i s h e d that there can be no appellate review of allegedly excessive or in a d e q u a t e damages if the trial court was not given the opportunity to exercise it s discretion on a motion for a new trial." (citations omitted)). A F F IR M E D .

3