Waverly Scott Kaffaga v. Thomas Steinbeck et al

Filing 318

ORDER by Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr: Accordingly, It is Ordered that Defendants renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law be, and hereby is, Denied. It is further Ordered that Defendants motion for a new trial and/or remittitur be, and hereby is, Denied. It is further Ordered that Defendants motion for a permanent injunction and declaratory relief be, and hereby is, Denied. dismissing 305 MOTION for Permanent Injunction. (See order for further details) (yl)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California
Western Division

8
9
10
11
12

WAVERLY SCOTT KAFFAGA, etc.,

13

Plaintiff,

14
15

CV 14-08699 TJH (FFMx)

v.
THOMAS STEINBECK, et al.,

16

Defendants.

17

Order
[311]

18
19
20

The Court has considered Defendants’ renewed motion for judgment as a matter

21

of law, Defendants’ motion for a new trial and/or remittitur, and Plaintiff’s motion for

22

a permanent injunction and declaratory relief, together with the moving and opposing

23

papers.

24

“Judgment as a matter of law is proper when the evidence permits only one

25

reasonable conclusion and the conclusion is contrary to that reached by the jury.” Ostad

26

v. Or. Health Sci. Univ., 327 F.3d 876, 881 (9th Cir.2003). Here, the jury’s verdict

27

was a reasonable conclusion supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, a judgment

28

as a matter of law is not warranted.
Order – Page 1 of 3

1

The Court may grant a new trial, “after a jury trial, for any reason for which a

2

new trial has heretofore been granted in an action at law in federal court.” Fed. R.

3

Civ. P. 59(a)(1)(A). Here, Defendants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to

4

support the jury’s verdict. However, the verdict was not against the clear weight of the

5

evidence. See Landes Const. Co., Inc. v. Royal Bank of Canada, 833 F.2d 1365, 1371-

6

1372 (9th Cir. 1987).

7

Further, the verdict was not a miscarriage of justice. See Murphy v. City of Long

8

Beach, 914 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1990). Therefore, a new trial is not warranted.

Indeed, the verdict was supported by substantial evidence.

9

In diversity cases, the question of whether the amount of a jury’s verdict is

10

excessive is determined by state law. Browning-Ferris Indus. of Vermont, Inc. v. Kelco

11

Disposal, Inc., 492 U.S. 257, 278-279 (1989). Under California law, if the Court

12

determines that the jury’s damages award was excessive, the Court may issue a

13

remittitur and conditionally grant a new trial, subject to Plaintiff rejecting a reduced

14

damages award. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 662.5(a)(2). A remmittitur can occur only if,

15

after weighing the evidence, the Court is convinced from the entire record, including

16

all reasonable inferences, that the jury clearly should have reached a different verdict.

17

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 657. The Court is not permitted to substitute its judgment for

18

that of the jury unless it appears from the record that the jury’s verdict was improper.

19

Bigboy v. County of San Diego, 154 Cal. App. 3d 397, 406, 201 (1984). Having

20

reviewed the record and having weighed the evidence, the Court is not convinced that

21

the jury should have reached a different verdict or that the verdict reached was

22

improper. Therefore, a remittitur is not warranted.

23

To support the issuance of a permanent injunction, Plaintiff must establish, inter

24

alia, that legal remedies, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for

25

any future injury. eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006).

26

The Court finds that monetary damages are an adequate remedy.

27

Further, this Court is not the appropriate court to issue injunctive or declaratory

28

relief based on decisions made by the Southern District of New York and the United
Order – Page 2 of 3

1

States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

2
3

Accordingly,

4
5
6

It is Ordered that Defendants’ renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law
be, and hereby is, Denied.

7
8
9

It is further Ordered that Defendants’ motion for a new trial and/or remittitur
be, and hereby is, Denied.

10
11
12

It is further Ordered that Defendants’ motion for a permanent injunction and
declaratory relief be, and hereby is, Denied.

13
14

Date: February 9, 2018

15

__________________________________

16

Terry J. Hatter, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Order – Page 3 of 3