Garcia v. City of Santa Clara et al

Filing 292

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL 289 . (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 8/16/2017)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

DANIEL C. GARCIA,

9

Plaintiff,

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Case No. 10-cv-02424-SI
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

v.
CITY OF SANTA CLARA, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 289

Defendants.

13
14
15

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, plaintiff Daniel Garcia alleged that Santa Clara Police

16

officers violated his constitutional rights by, inter alia, unlawfully arresting him at the Santa Clara

17

Marriott Hotel, and by using excessive force in effecting that arrest. In September, 2015, the

18

Court granted partial summary judgment for the defense, including on plaintiff’s claims for

19

unlawful arrest and for excessive force in the Santa Clara Marriott hallway. Dkt. No. 116. After

20

receiving court-appointed counsel, plaintiff brought a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s

21

summary judgment ruling, Dkt. No. 157, which the Court denied, Dkt. No. 163. For purposes of

22

this order, the Court assumes that the parties are familiar with the facts of this case and therefore

23

foregoes a more detailed factual recitation.

24

After a four-day trial in this matter, the jury returned a verdict for the sole remaining

25

defendant, Officer Alec Lange, and against plaintiff. See Jury Verdict (Dkt. No. 272). The Court

26

entered judgment accordingly. Amended Judgment (Dkt. No. 287). Now before the Court is

27

plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. Dkt. No. 289. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), this matter is

28

suitable for resolution without oral argument. The Court hereby VACATES the hearing scheduled

1

for September 1, 2017 and, for the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion.

2
3
LEGAL STANDARD

4
5

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a)(1) states, “[t]he court may, on motion, grant a new

6

trial on all or some of the issues—and to any party—as follows: (A) after a jury trial, for any

7

reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an action at law in federal court . . . .”

8

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(1). As the Ninth Circuit has noted, “Rule 59 does not specify the grounds on

9

which a motion for a new trial may be granted . . . .” Zhang v. Am. Gem Seafoods, Inc., 339 F.3d
1020, 1035 (9th Cir. 2003).

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Instead, the court is “bound by those grounds that have been

historically recognized.” Id. “Historically recognized grounds include, but are not limited to,

12

claims ‘that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, that the damages are excessive, or

13

that, for other reasons, the trial was not fair to the party moving.’” Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481

14

F.3d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Duncan, 311 U.S. 243, 251

15

(1940)). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[t]he trial court may grant a new trial only if the verdict

16

is contrary to the clear weight of the evidence, is based upon false or perjurious evidence, or to

17

prevent a miscarriage of justice.” Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Prods., Inc., 212

18

F.3d 493, 510 n.15 (9th Cir. 2000).

19
20
21

DISCUSSION

22

Plaintiff argues that the Court should grant a new trial in his case because, by granting

23

summary judgment on certain of plaintiff’s unlawful arrest and other excessive force claims, the

24

Court necessarily prejudiced the verdict on the remaining claims submitted to the jury. For the

25

reasons set forth in the Court’s prior rulings on these issues, see Dkt. Nos. 116, 163, the Court

26

finds that a new trial is unwarranted. Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

27
28
2

CONCLUSION

1
2

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for new trial is DENIED.

3

This order resolves Dkt. No. 289.

4
5
6
7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 16, 2017
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3