Watson et al v. County of Santa Clara et al

Filing 485

ORDER by Judge Whyte denying 483 Application for Interlocutory Appeal(rmwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/29/2012)

1
2
3

E-filed on:

2/29/2012

4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12
13

TRACY WATSON, RENEE STALKER, PAM
STALKER as Guardian Ad Litem for O.S.,
S.W. and R.W., minors,

14

No. C-06-04029 RMW
ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR
INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

Plaintiffs,
[Docket #483]

15
16
17

v.
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, et al.,
Defendants.

18
19

Plaintiffs have filed an application for permission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) to file an

20

interlocutory appeal of the court’s Order on Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and for New

21

Trial filed January 11, 2012. In its Order, the court vacated the damages awards and granted a new

22

trial on damages. The court hereby denies plaintiffs’ application for permission to file an

23

interlocutory appeal.

24

The court is not unsympathetic with plaintiffs’ concern over the correct legal standard for

25

measuring damages under the circumstances of this case, i.e. when officers improperly failed to

26

obtain a warrant, but when the juvenile court then keeps the children from their parents for their

27

safety and protection. However, even if the court of appeals determined that the jury was properly

28

instructed, a new trial would be necessary because the damages awarded were excessive. An
ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
No. C-06-04029 RMW

1

interlocutory appeal would likely serve no purpose but to delay the ultimate termination of this

2

litigation and result in piecemeal review of the issues. For an immediate appeal to be appropriate, it

3

must be likely to materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. See 28 U.S.C. §

4

1292(b).

5

Plaintiffs also seek to include in an interlocutory appeal their objection to the court’s grant of
a new trial with respect to punitive damages and the court’s instruction to the parties to submit a

7

“joint proposed statement to the jury explaining the nature of the case and what the jury will be

8

asked to decide.” Ps’ App. p. 17, fn. 10. There is no substantial difference of opinion on a court’s

9

discretion to grant a new trial on the basis of excessive damages. Therefore, plaintiffs’ objection to

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

6

the court’s grant of a new trial because the damages awarded were excessive provides no basis for

11

an interlocutory appeal. As for the court’s instruction to the parties to submit a joint proposed

12

statement to the jury, the court is baffled as to why the plaintiffs contend that request is error. Since

13

a new trial will be on damages only, the court will need to explain to the jury that liability has

14

already been determined and that the jury’s responsibility will be to determine the nature and extent

15

of damages.

16

Requesting the parties to submit proposed language to assist the court in formulating a preliminary

17

instruction to the jury as to its task is an appropriate and common practice.

18
19
20

DATED:

February 29, 2012
RONALD M. WHYTE
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
No. C-06-04029 RMW

2