Escriba v. Foster Poultry Farms, Inc.

Filing 245

ORDER re 241 , Plaintiff's Post Trial Motions, signed by Senior Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 09/30/11. (Coffman, Lisa)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Armand George Skol, SBN 58974
William A. Lapcevic, SBN 238893
ARATA, SWINGLE, SODHI & VAN EGMOND
A Professional Law Corporation
912 11th Street, First Floor
Post Office Box 3287
Modesto, California 95353
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Carmine R. Zarlenga (Pro Hac Vice)
MAYER BROWN LLP
1999 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

9
10
11
12

Maritoni D. Kane (Pro Hac Vice)
MAYER BROWN LLP
71 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant

13
14

Attorneys for Defendant
Foster Poultry Farms

15
16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18

FRESNO DIVISION

19

Case No. 1:09-CV-01878-OWW-MJS
MARIA ESCRIBA,

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S
POST TRIAL MOTIONS

20
Plaintiff,
21
vs.
22
23

FOSTER POULTRY FARMS,
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION,

24

Defendant.

25
26

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of

27

Law, Alternative Motion For New Trial, and Motion To Amend The Judgment (dkt. 221). The Court has

28

///
-1Order on Plaintiff’s Post Trial Motions

1

reviewed both parties’ briefs and, for the reasons set forth in its memorandum order filed on September

2

29, 2011 (dkt. 241), the Court orders as follows:

3
4

1.

The evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict in all respects. Plaintiff’s Rule 50

motion for judgment as a matter of law accordingly is DENIED.

5

2.

The verdict was not against the clear weight of the evidence, and Plaintiff’s evidentiary

6

objection provides no basis for a new trial. Plaintiff’s Rule 59(a) motion for a new trial accordingly is

7

DENIED.

8
9
10

3.

prevailing party under California law solely with respect to her claim for unpaid accrued vacation time
and the associated waiting time penalty is GRANTED.

11
12

Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment to reflect that she is the

4.

Defendant is the prevailing party in all other respects and accordingly is entitled to recover,

at minimum, costs of the suit.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17
18

Dated:

September 30, 2011

/s/ Oliver W. Wanger
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DEAC_Signature-END:

emm0d64h

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2Order on Plaintiff’s Post Trial Motions