Wadler v. Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. et al

Filing 215

ORDER by Judge Joseph C. Spero granting 207 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law under Rule 50(a) in favor of Plaintiff as to Mitigation Defense; denying Plaintiff's oral Rule 50 Motion except as to mitigation of damages defense; denying 209 Defendants' Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law under Rule 50(a). (jcslc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SANFORD S. WADLER,

Case No. 15-cv-02356-JCS

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

BIO-RAD LABORATORIES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

Docket Nos. 207, 209

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S
RULE 50 MOTION AND DENYING
DEFENDANTS' RULE 50 MOTION

12
13

Presently before the Court are motions for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule

14

50(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff’s Rule 50 motion was made orally in open

15

Court at the close of Defendants’ case and seeks entry of judgment as a matter of law as to liability

16

in the entire case. Plaintiff also filed a written request for judgment as a matter of law under Rule

17

50(a) as to Defendants’ mitigation of damages defense. See Docket No. 207. Defendants have

18

filed a written Rule 50(a) motion that seeks entry of judgment as a matter of law in its favor with

19

respect to all of the claims and defenses in the case and on both compensatory and punitive

20

damages. See Docket No. 209.

21

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Rule 50(a) motion as to Defendants’ mitigation of

22

damages defense. To prevail on this defense, Defendants must prove, by the preponderance of the

23

evidence, both that Mr. Wadler did not use reasonable diligence in seeking employment after Bio-

24

Rad terminated him and that there were substantially equivalent jobs available that Mr. Wadler

25

could have obtained. See Odima v. Westin Tucson Hotel, 53 F.3d 1484, 1497 (9th Cir. 1995).

26

Defendants failed to present any evidence at trial from which a jury could reasonably conclude

27

that the second requirement was met. Defendants also presented no evidence that would allow the

28

jury to make a reasonable determination as to the amount of money Mr. Wadler could have earned

1

if he had obtained alternative employment. Accordingly, the Court enters judgment in favor of

2

Plaintiff with respect Defendants’ mitigation defense.

3

The Court DENIES the parties’ Rule 50 motions in all other respects.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: February 3, 2017

7
8
9

______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate 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
2