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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?