Clifford R Moseley v. Pasadena Unified School District et al

Filing 160

JUDGMENT by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew in favor of defendants Debra Jenkins DeBose and Irene Quinones against plaintiff Clifford Ramiro Moseley. Plaintiff shall recover nothing by reason of his Complaint. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (pp) Modified on 3/24/2009 (kd).

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

KOHRS & FISKE

J. PETER FISKE (State Bar No. 76408)
3250 Ocean Park Boulevard, Suite 130 Santa Monica, California 90405-3218 [phone] Fax: [phone]

(Exempt from filing fee per Govt. Code §6103)

DUNCAN MCCREARY (State Bar No. 225034)

JS-6

Attorneys for Defendants DEBRA DEBOSE, and IRENE QUINONES, public employees of PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CLIFFORD RAMIRO MOSELEY, Plaintiff, vs. IRENE QUINONES; DEBRA JENKINS DEBOSE; and DOES 110, Inclusive, Defendants.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CASE NO. CV 04-01973 RSWL
JUDGMENT FOLLOWING JURY TRIAL

This action came on regularly for Trial on February 3, 2009 before Honorable Ronald S. W. Lew, Senior United States District Court Judge, in Room 21 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Plaintiff Clifford Ramiro Moseley

appeared by Gloria Dredd Haney, Esq., and defendants Irene Quinones and Debra Jenkins DeBose appeared by J. Peter Fiske, Esq. of Kohrs & Fiske. A jury of eight persons was regularly impaneled and sworn. Witnesses were sworn and testified. 1 JUDGMENT FOLLOWING JURY TRIAL [Proposed]

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

After plaintiff rested, defense counsel brought Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law under FRCP Rule 50(a) as to both defendant Irene Quinones and defendant Debra DeBose. Upon due

consideration, the Court granted the Motion as to defendant DeBose, and denied the Motion as to defendant Quinones. The case was

thereupon dismissed as against defendant DeBose, and Trial continued as to defendant Quinones. After hearing the evidence and argument of counsel, the jury was duly instructed by the Court and the cause was submitted to the jury with directions to return a verdict on special issues. jury deliberated and thereafter returned into Court with its verdict consisting of the special issues submitted to the jury and the answers given thereto by the jury, which said verdict was in words and figures as follows, to wit: The

"TITLE OF COURT AND CAUSE We, the jury, find this Special Verdict based on the following questions submitted to us: Question 1: Did Plaintiff engage in a constitutionally

20 protected political activity, a form of free speech, as defined in 21 the court's instructions by engaging in union activity? 22 23 24 25 If you answered Question 1 Yes, answer Question 2; if No, sign Answer Yes or No: Yes

26 and date this form. 27 28 2 JUDGMENT FOLLOWING JURY TRIAL [Proposed]

1

Question 2: Was such protected political activity by the

2 Plaintiff a substantial or motivating factor in the School 3 District's decision not to rehire plaintiff? 4 5 6 If you answered Question 2 Yes, answer Question 3; if No, sign Answer Yes or No: No

7 and date this form. 8 9 Question 3: Were the Defendant's acts the proximate or legal

10 cause of damages to the Plaintiff? 11 12 13 If you answered Question 3 Yes, answer Question 4; if No, sign Answer Yes or No: _________

14 and date this form. 15 16 Question 4: Do you find that Plaintiff would not have been

17 rehired based on his job performance, even if his protected 18 activity had not been considered? 19 20 Answer Yes or No: _____________ If you answer Question 4 Yes, sign and date this form; if No,

21 answer Question 5. 22 23 24 25 26 If your answer is Yes, in what amount? Question 5: Did plaintiff sustain monetary damages? Answer Yes or No: _____________

27 $_____________ 28 3 JUDGMENT FOLLOWING JURY TRIAL [Proposed]

1 2 3 4 Question 6: Did plaintiff sustain damages for emotional Answer the next question.

5 distress? 6 7 8 If your answer is Yes, in what amount? Answer Yes or No: _____________

9 $_____________ 10 11 Question 7: If you find the defendant engaged in conduct which

12 was malicious, oppressive, or in reckless disregard of plaintiff's 13 constitutional rights, should plaintiff be awarded punitive 14 damages? 15 16 17 If your answer is Yes, in what amount? Answer Yes or No: _________

18 $____________________ 19 20 21 22 DATED: 23 24 25 26 It appearing by reason of said dismissal as to defendant Debra Presiding Juror" February 10, 2009 NAME REDACTED BY COURT SO SAY WE ALL.

27 Jenkins DeBose and by reason of said verdict as to defendant Irene 28 4 JUDGMENT FOLLOWING JURY TRIAL [Proposed]

1 Quinones, that defendants Debra Jenkins DeBose and Irene Quinones 2 are entitled to judgment against plaintiff Clifford Ramiro Moseley: 3 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that said

4 plaintiff, Clifford Ramiro Moseley recover nothing by reason of his 5 Complaint and that Judgment shall be, and hereby is, entered in 6 favor of defendants Debra Jenkins DeBose and Irene Quinones and 7 against plaintiff Clifford Ramiro Moseley. 8 9 DATED: March 17, 2009 10 11 /s/ __________________________________ __ 12 HONORABLE RONALD S. W. LEW Senior, U.S. District Court Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 JUDGMENT FOLLOWING JURY TRIAL [Proposed]