Hesselbein v. City of Elk Grove et al

Filing 118

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 5/2/2016 re 109 Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting New Trial, or in the alternative, Request to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal: IT IS ORDERED that (1) Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's March 9, 2016 Order be, and the same hereby is, DENIED; (2) Defendant's Motion For Certification for Interlocutory Appeal of the Court's Grant of a New Trial be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED; and (3) 115 Plaintiff's Motion for Certification for Interlocutory Appeal of the Court's Denial of His Renewed Motion for Judgment As a Matter of Law be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. (Kirksey Smith, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12
13
14
15
16

JOHN HESSELBEIN,

CIV. NO. 2:11-2157 WBS AC

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER RE: MOTIONS FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND
INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

PAUL BECKHAM,
Defendant.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

----oo0oo---After a four-day jury trial, the jury returned a
verdict in favor of defendant Elk Grove Police Officer Paul
Beckham on plaintiff John Hesselbein’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for
excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

In an

Order dated March 9, 2016, the court denied plaintiff’s renewed
motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 50(b) but granted plaintiff’s motion for a new
trial under Rule 59.

Defendant now moves for reconsideration of

that portion of the Order granting a new trial and,

28
1

1
2
3
4
5
6

alternatively, for certification of an interlocutory appeal from
that portion of the Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
Conversely, plaintiff moves for certification of interlocutory
appeal from that portion of the Order denying plaintiff’s renewed
motion for judgment as a matter of law.
I.

Motion for Reconsideration

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

“Federal Rule[] of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides a
procedure whereby, in appropriate cases, a party may be relieved
of a final judgment.”

Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition

Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 863 (1988).

Under Rule 60(b)(1), the court

may relieve a party from a final judgment based on “mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.”
60(b).

Fed. R. Civ. P.

Although “[t]he Rule does not particularize the factors

that justify relief, [the Supreme Court has] previously noted
that it provides courts with authority adequate to enable them to
vacate judgments whenever such action is appropriate to
accomplish justice, while also cautioning that it should only be
applied in extraordinary circumstances.”

Liljeberg, 486 U.S. at

863-64.
Having considered defendant’s motion for
reconsideration, the court is not persuaded that it made an error
of law or fact.

Defendant does not advance a single argument in

his motion for reconsideration that the court did not carefully
consider before reaching its decision.

The court remains firmly

convinced that its decision to grant a new trial was correct for
the reasons discussed in the March 9, 2016 Order.

Accordingly,

the court will deny defendant’s motion for reconsideration.

28
2

1

II.

Motion for Interlocutory Appeal

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), a district court may certify
for appeal an interlocutory order which is not otherwise
appealable if the district court is “of the opinion that such
order [1] involves a controlling question of law as to which [2]
there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that
[3] an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the
ultimate outcome of the litigation.”

28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).

A

question of law is controlling if “resolution of the issue on
appeal could materially affect the outcome of litigation in the
district court” and it is not collateral to the major issues of
the case.

In re Cement Antitrust Litig., 673 F.2d 1020, 1026

(9th Cir. 1982).

Section 1292(b) “is to be used only in

extraordinary cases where decision of an interlocutory appeal
might avoid protracted and expensive litigation.”

U.S. Rubber

Co. v. Wright, 359 F.2d 784, 785 (9th Cir. 1966).
In considering the post-trial motions, the court gave
serious consideration to granting plaintiff’s renewed motion for
a directed verdict.

As the court discussed at length in its

March 9, 2016 Order, it is difficult to understand how the jury
could have found that a reasonable officer would have perceived
plaintiff as posing an imminent threat necessitating the use of
deadly force under the circumstances of this case.
2016 Order at 10:8-16:14 (Docket No. 108).)

(See Mar. 9,

Despite the paucity

of evidence supporting the verdict, the court recognized that
reasonableness is peculiarly a factual inquiry that should be
examined by a jury which reflects the conscience of the

28
3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

community.

Out of deference to the jury’s proper role as the

trier of fact, and under the narrow inquiry governing a Rule 50
motion, the court felt obliged to deny plaintiff’s motion for a
renewed judgment as a matter of law.
However, as discussed in the March 9, 2016 Order, the
inquiry governing a motion for new trial is not as deferential
and the court has the duty to weigh the evidence and ensure that
a miscarriage of justice did not occur.

(See id. at 17:6-18:11.)

The court could not in good conscience ignore the scarcity of
evidence when coupled with the jury’s consideration of
inadmissible character evidence that the Ninth Circuit has held
can constitute reversible error.

(See id. at 18:12-23:16.)

For

these reasons, the court has no doubt that a miscarriage of
justice occurred and that plaintiff is accordingly entitled to a
new trial.
Despite the court’s effort to consider each motion
independently and under the appropriate standard, different
judges on appeal could easily conclude that the court was too
deferential to the jury in denying plaintiff’s Rule 50 motion.
Conversely, different judges on appeal might disagree with this
court’s decision to grant a new trial.

If the judges on appeal

disagree with either decision, reversal would be dispositive of
the entire case and prevent a second trial.

Resolution of these

controlling questions of law at this time would undoubtedly
advance the outcome of the litigation and could prevent the
court, potential jurors, and parties from expending significant
time and resources on an unnecessary second trial.

28
4

Accordingly,

1
2

the court will grant both parties’ motions for certification of
the court’s March 9, 2016 Order for interlocutory appeal.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that (1) defendant’s motion for
reconsideration of the court’s March 9, 2016 Order be, and the
same hereby is, DENIED; (2) defendant’s motion for certification
for interlocutory appeal of the court’s grant of a new trial be,
and the same hereby is, GRANTED; and (3) plaintiff’s motion for
certification for interlocutory appeal of the court’s denial of
his renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law be, and the
same hereby is, GRANTED.
Dated:

May 2, 2016

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5