Rodriguez v. County of Stanislaus, et al.

Filing 473

ORDER RE: Post-Trial Motions and Entry of Judgment, signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 8/9/2011. (Kusamura, W)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5
6

LUCIO CORRAL RODRIGUEZ,
individually and as Successor in
Interest to the decedents,
MARICRUZ CORRAL, IVAN ALEXANDER
CORRAL, and LUCIO ANTHONY CORRAL,

9
10
11
12
13

ORDER RE POST-TRIAL MOTIONS
AND ENTRY OF JUDGMENT.
(DOC. 452, 454)

7
8

1:08-cv-00856 OWW GSA

Plaintiff,
vs.
COUNTY OF STANISLAUS; CITY OF
MODESTO; CITY OF RIVERBANK; STATE
OF CALIFORNIA, AMTRAK CALIFORNIA;
BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE
RAILWAY; and DOES 1 to 200,
Defendants.

14
15

This case arises from a collision between a train operated

16

by National Railroad Passenger Corporation (“Amtrak”) and a

17

vehicle driven by Lucio Corral Rodriguez’s (“Plaintiff”) wife,

18

Maricruz Corral, resulting in the death of Maricruz Corral and

19
20
21

Plaintiff’s two children (together, “Decedents”). Plaintiff sued
several defendants, including Amtrak, Burlington Northern Santa

22

Fe Railway (“BNSF”), and the State of California, Department of

23

Transportation (together, “Defendants”).

24

A twelve-day jury trial began on December 8, 2010 and

25

culminated with a jury verdict on January 14, 2011. A mistrial

26
27

was declared as to punitive damages. A separate trial on punitive
damages is scheduled to begin November 29, 2011.

28
1

1

Plaintiff moved for (1) entry of judgment against Amtrak and

2

the State of California and (2) accrual of interest from the date

3

of filing of the jury’s original verdict. (Doc. 452). Defendants

4

filed an opposition seeking a setoff and sanctions (Doc. 453), to

5
6
7

which Plaintiff replied (Doc. 456). Defendants moved for judgment
as a matter of law regarding punitive damages (Doc. 454), which

8

Plaintiff opposed (Doc. 455). A hearing on the motions was held

9

May 23, 2011. The parties submitted supplemental briefs on the

10

issue of pre and post judgment interest. Docs. 464, 465.

11
12
13

On July 5, 2011, the court issued a memorandum decision and
order (i) granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s posttrial motion and (ii) denying Defendants’ post-trial motion. Doc.

14
15

469. Plaintiff submitted a proposed form of order consistent with

16

the memorandum decision and order. Doc. 470. Defendants filed an

17

opposition to Plaintiff’s proposed judgment, contending that

18

given the court’s denial of Amtrak’s renewed motion for judgment

19

as a matter of law as to punitive damages, partial judgment may

20

not be entered under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). Doc.

21

471. Because Defendants advanced arguments that were not

22
23
24

previously raised in their opposition to Plaintiff’s post-trial
motions, the court issued a minute order allowing Plaintiff until

25

August 3, 2011 to oppose Defendants’ opposition. Doc. 472.

26

Plaintiff did not file a supplemental opposition.

27
28

2

1

Rule 54(b) provides that “[w]hen an action presents more

2

than one claim for relief . . . the court may direct entry of a

3

final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or

4

parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no

5
6
7

just reason for delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). For Rule 54(b) to
apply, “claims must be multiple and at least one must have been

8

adjudicated fully.” Ariz. State Carpenters Pension Trust Fund v.

9

Miller, 938 F.2d 1038, 1039 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Cont’l

10

Airlines, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 819 F.2d 1519, 1524

11

(9th Cir. 1987)). “[W]hen liability rests on the same transaction

12
13

or series of transactions, a count for punitive damages, although
of a different order than compensatory damages, does not

14
15

constitute a separate claim under Rule 54(b).” Ariz. State

16

Carpenters, 938 F.2d at 1040. Here, Plaintiff’s claims for

17

compensatory damages and punitive damages are “inextricably

18

intertwined” because “[b]oth the basic theories of recovery and

19

the core set of operative facts comprising the primary proof on

20

the compensatory and punitive damage counts would be the same.”

21

Id. Plaintiff’s punitive damages claim is not separate from his

22
23
24

compensatory damages claim, and partial judgment cannot be
entered as to Plaintiff’s award of compensatory damages.

25
26
27
28

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that:
1. Plaintiff’s motion for proposed judgment is GRANTED in
3

1
2

part and DENIED in part, as follows:
a. Plaintiff’s motion for entry of judgment as to

3

Amtrak’s liability is GRANTED, in the following

4

amount:

5
6
7

$
- $

863,359.00
431,679.50

- $

178,778.93

8
9
10

$ 252,900.57
$3,000,000.00
- $1,500,000.00

11

$1,500,000.00
$1,752,900.57

12
13

Final judgment will not be entered until Plaintiff’s

14

punitive damages claims are adjudicated.

15
16

b. Plaintiff’s motion for judgment against the State of

17
18

California is DENIED.
c. Plaintiff’s motion for pre-judgment interest is

19
20

Total economic damages
Reduction of economic damages by
Maricruz Corral’s 50% fault
Reduction of economic damages by
economic portion of County of
Stanislaus settlement
Plaintiff’s economic damages
Total noneconomic damages
Reduction of noneconomic damages by
Maricruz Corral’s 50% fault
Plaintiff’s noneconomic damages
Amtrak’s total liability to
Plaintiff for compensatory damages

DENIED.
d. Plaintiff’s motion for post-judgment interest is

21
GRANTED. Post-judgment interest shall accrue from the

22

date of this Order.

23
24

2. Defendant’s request for sanctions and renewed motion for

25

judgment as a matter of law as to punitive damages are

26

DENIED.

27
28

SO ORDERED.
4

1
2
3

DATED: August 9, 2011
/s/ Oliver W. Wanger
Oliver W. Wanger
United States District Judge

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

5