Bryant v. Gallagher et al

Filing 382

ORDER Granting 381 Joint Motion to Vacate Jury Verdict in Accordance with Settlement; ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 377 Motion for Attorney Fees as Moot signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 09/15/2017. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

KEVIN D. BRYANT,

11
12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.
GALLAGHER, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-00446-BAM (PC)
ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO
VACATE JURY VERDICT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SETTLEMENT
(ECF No. 381)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR ATTORNEY FEES AS MOOT
(ECF NO. 377)

Plaintiff Kevin Darnell Bryant (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis

17

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed this action on March 17, 2011. On

18

May 15, 2017, the case proceeded to trial on Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Romero for

19

deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and

20

against Defendants Gallagher and Romero for conspiracy, retaliation in violation of the First

21

Amendment, and failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

22

On May 18, 2017, the jury found the following: (1) Defendant Gallagher liable for

23

retaliation, conspiracy, and failure to intervene in the amount of $45,000; and (2) Defendant

24

Romero liable for retaliation, conspiracy, failure to intervene, and deliberate indifference in the

25

amount of $55,000. The jury also awarded Plaintiff $15,000 in punitive damages against each

26

defendant. The total amount of damages awarded was $130,000.

27

On July 17, 2017, the parties filed a notice of settlement and request to file dispositional

28

documents within sixty days. (ECF No. 379.) The parties stated they had reached a settlement
1

1

agreement involving this matter and also Bryant v. Romero (E.D. Cal. No. 1:12-cv-2074-DAD-

2

GSA) (“Romero”). In addition, the settlement agreement would resolve all pending matters

3

before the Court, including attorney’s fees and costs. (ECF No. 379.) The Court granted the

4

motion. (ECF No. 380.)

5

Currently before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to vacate the jury verdict in

6

accordance with settlement, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The parties

7

confirm that they have reached a global settlement including this lawsuit and Romero. In

8

Romero, both Defendants moved for summary judgment, and on July 17, 2017, the magistrate

9

judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that Defendant Waddle’s motion be

10

denied. (Romero, Doc. Nos. 92, 96, 208.) The parties argue that without the settlement, Romero

11

would likely have gone forward to trial regardless of the outcome of the other pending motion for

12

summary judgment. Thus, the parties agreed to a global settlement sum of $420,000, contingent

13

on the filing of the instant motion to set aside the verdicts and the judgment. (ECF No. 381.)

14

For the factual and legal reasons stated in the parties’ joint brief, their motion is granted.

15

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides that a court “may relieve a party or its legal

16

representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” where “the judgment has been

17

satisfied, released or discharged,” where “applying it prospectively is no longer equitable,” or for

18

“any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5)-(6). The Ninth Circuit has held

19

that a district court must balance the equities when asked to vacate a judgment or order, and

20

extraordinary or exceptional circumstances are not required for vacatur. Am. Games, Inc. v.

21

Trade Prods., Inc., 142 F.3d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 1998). Upon balance, the Court finds that the

22

conservation of judicial and private resources, as well as the parties’ desire to final resolution of

23

multiple actions obtain through a settlement, outweighs the minimal harm to the public interests.

24

Accordingly, the Court grants the parties’ motion to vacate the jury verdict.

25

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

26

1. The parties’ joint motion to vacate the jury verdict, (ECF No. 381) is GRANTED;

27

2. Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees, (ECF No. 377) is DENIED as moot;

28

3. The May 18, 2017 jury verdicts, (ECF Nos. 363, 364), are VACATED;
2

1

4. The May 19, 2017 judgment, (ECF No. 367), is VACATED; and

2

5. This case shall remain closed.

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

September 15, 2017

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3