Luong et al v. City and County of San Francisco Police Department

Filing 79

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' RULE 50 MOTION. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 3/28/13. (mejlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/1/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

Northern District of California

6
7

KIMBERLY LUONG,
Plaintiff(s),

8
v.

No. C 11-05661 MEJ
ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ RULE 50
MOTION

9
SF CITY & COUNTY,
10
Defendant(s).
_____________________________________/

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

13

Following the close of evidence, Defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law pursuant

14 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a). Under Rule 50, the Court may grant judgment as a matter
15 of law against a party on a claim if the Court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally
16 sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on an issue essential to that claim. Having considered
17 the parties’ arguments and controlling law, the Court rules as follows:
18 I.

Kimberly Luong

19

A.

20

Kimberly Luong testified that Officer Ciudad never touched her or otherwise made contact

Claims Against Officer Albern Ciudad

21 with her. Thus, the Court finds that the jury has no legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for her
22 on the excessive force claim as to Ofc. Ciudad. Further, the Court finds that the evidence presented
23 as to Ofc. Ciudad’s conduct is not legally sufficient to rise to the level of outrageousness to sustain a
24 claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Court therefore GRANTS judgment in
25 favor of Ofc. Ciudad as to Kimberly Luong on all claims.
26

B.

Claims Against Officer Gary Moriyama

27

As to Ofc. Moriyama, Kimberly testified that he never physically touched her. The record

28 also lacks sufficient evidence from which the jury could find that Ofc. Moriyama’s conduct toward

1 Kimberly rose to the level of outrageousness to sustain an intentional infliction of emotional distress
2 claim. Thus, the Court finds that the jury has no legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for her on
3 either the excessive force or the intentional infliction of emotional distress claims as to Ofc.
4 Moriyama. The Court therefore GRANTS judgment in favor of Ofc. Moriyama as to Kimberly
5 Luong on all claims.
6

C.

7

With respect to Ofc. Chea and Sgt. Haymond, the Court finds that there is evidence in the

Claims Against Officer Sophal Chea and Sergeant Thomas Haymond

8 record to allow the claims to go to the jury. The Court therefore DENIES the Rule 50 motion as to
9 Ofc. Chea and Sgt. Haymond with respect to Kimberly Luong’s claims.

A.

12
For the Northern District of California

Vicky Luong

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10 II.

Vicky testified that Officer Ciudad never touched her or otherwise made contact with her.

Claims Against Ofc. Ciudad

13 Thus, the Court finds that the jury has no legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for her on either
14 the excessive force or the intentional infliction of emotional distress claims as to Ofc. Ciudad. The
15 Court therefore GRANTS judgment in favor of Ofc. Ciudad as to Vicky Luong on all claims.
16

B.

17

With respect to Ofc. Chea, Vicky offered no testimony that Ofc. Chea did anything to her

Claims Against Ofc. Chea

18 physically. The record also lacks sufficient evidence from which the jury could find that Ofc. Chea’s
19 conduct toward Vicky rose to the level of outrageousness to sustain an intentional infliction of
20 emotional distress claim. Thus, the Court finds that the jury has no legally sufficient evidentiary
21 basis to find for her on either the excessive force or the intentional infliction of emotional distress
22 claims as to Ofc. Chea. The Court therefore GRANTS judgment in favor of Ofc. Chea as to Vicky
23 Luong on all claims.
24

C.

25

As to Ofc. Moriyama and Sgt. Haymond, the Court finds that there is evidence in the record to

Claims Against Ofc. Moriyama and Sgt. Haymond

26 allow the claims to go to the jury as to these officers. The Court therefore DENIES the Rule 50
27 motion as to Ofc. Moriyama and Sgt. Haymond with respect to Vicky Luong’s claims.
28
2

1 III.

Punitive Damages

2

The Court DENIES the motion as to punitive damages as to the remaining claims.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5 Dated: March 28, 2013
_______________________________
Maria-Elena James
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9
10

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

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