Cristina Gutierrez et al v. County of Los Angeles et al

Filing 131

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder: The Court hereby DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion for a New Trial 128 . Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 10-7589-CAS (PLAx)

Title

CRISTINA GUTIERREZ, ET AL. V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET
AL.

Present: The Honorable

Date

November 5, 2013

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

Catherine M. Jeang
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(In chambers:) PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL
(dkt. 128, filed October 2, 2013)

The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing date of November 18, 2013, is
vacated, and the matter is hereby taken under submission.
I.

INTRODUCTION

On October 12, 2010, plaintiffs Cristina Gutierrez, Hector Gutierrez Sr., and
Hector Gutierrez Jr. filed the complaint in the instant action against defendants County of
Los Angeles (the “County”); Deputy Reyes # 480735 (“Reyes”), individually and as a
peace officer; Deputy D. Payne #470624 (“Payne”), individually and as a peace officer;
Steve Suzuki #259461 (“Suzuki”); and Captain Matt Dendo (“Dendo”). The gravamen
of plaintiffs’ complaint is that defendant officers entered their residence under the guise
of a probation search related to Alvaro Gutierrez, the Gutierrez’s son and brother of
Hector Jr., and removed jewelry and firearms with no reason to do so.
The case proceeded to a jury trial on August 20, 2013, with the jury returning a
special verdict on August 27, 2013. The jury found for defendants on all claims. Dkt.
120 (Special Verdict). On September 6, 2013, the Court entered judgment in favor of
defendants.
On October 2, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for a new trial. On October 15, 2013,
defendants filed their opposition, and on October 31, 2013, plaintiffs replied. After
considering the parties’ arguments, the Court finds and concludes as follows.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 10-7589-CAS (PLAx)

Title

CRISTINA GUTIERREZ, ET AL. V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET
AL.

II.

Date

November 5, 2013

LEGAL STANDARD

A court may grant a new trial if the jury’s verdict is against the clear weight of the
evidence. Landes Const. Co., Inc. v. Royal Bank of Can., 833 F.2d 1365, 1371 (9th Cir.
1987). In considering a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 motion, the court may “weigh the evidence
and assess the credibility of witnesses, and need not view the evidence from the
perspective most favorable to the prevailing party.” Id. at 1371-72 (“If, having given full
respect to the jury’s findings, the judge on the entire evidence is left with the definite and
firm conviction that a mistake has been committed, it is to be expected that he will grant a
new trial.”). However, the court should only grant a new trial if, without substituting its
judgment for that of the jury, the court is firmly convinced that the jury made a mistake.
Id. at 1372.
III.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs rest their motion for a new trial primarily on the contention that the Court
erred in several pretrial evidentiary rulings. On July 1, 2013, defendants filed five
motions in limine, two of which sought to exclude evidence relating to (1) alleged past
misconduct of defendant Reyes and (2) defendant Reyes’ financial condition. Dkt. 57,
58. By order dated July 29, 2013, the Court granted these motions in limine. Dkt. 83.
Plaintiffs argue that these rulings were erroneous, and that preventing the jury from
seeing this evidence deprived plaintiffs of a fair trial.
In particular, plaintiffs argue that evidence regarding the alleged past misconduct
of defendant Reyes should have been admitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 608,
which allows for cross-examination into specific instances of a witness’s conduct if “they
are probative of the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness.” Similarly, plaintiffs
argue that evidence regarding defendant Reyes’ financial misconduct should have been
admitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)(2), which allows for the introduction of
evidence insofar as it is probative of “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan,
knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.” Plaintiffs contend that evidence
of defendant Reyes’ financial condition was probative of Reyes’ motive to steal
plaintiffs’ jewelry.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 10-7589-CAS (PLAx)

Date

November 5, 2013

Title

CRISTINA GUTIERREZ, ET AL. V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET
AL.

Plaintiffs previously advanced all of these arguments in their oppositions to
defendants’ motions in limine. See, e.g., dkt. 73 at 5–9. Indeed, plaintiffs’ discussion in
their motion for a new trial appears to have been substantially adopted from their
oppositions to the motions in limine. Compare, e.g., dkt. 73 at 14 with dkt. 128 at 9.
Furthermore, the Court previously addressed plaintiffs’ arguments at length in its order
granting defendants’ motions of limine. See dkt. 83 at 2–5. The Court declines to revisit
its prior conclusions on these issues. Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiffs are not
entitled to a new trial on the grounds that evidence was improperly excluded.
Plaintiffs also contend that they are entitled to a new trial because the “verdict is a
gross miscarriage of justice.” Dkt. 128 at 17. Specifically, plaintiffs argue that the
evidence incontrovertibly shows that defendants removed jewelry from plaintiffs’ home.
After reviewing the evidence presented at trial, the Court declines to disturb the jury’s
conclusion that plaintiffs did not carry their burden in this case. See, e.g., Gray v. Shell
Oil Co., 469 F.2d 742, 747 (9th Cir. 1972) (“The jury resolved these issues . . . and we
will not disturb the verdict.”).
IV.

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, the Court hereby DENIES plaintiffs’ motion for
a new trial.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

CMJ

Page 3 of 3