Armstrong et al v. Maloney et al

Filing 321

MOTION by Defendants Briged M. Carlquist, Thien Chaiket, City Of Chicago, Alan P. Lasch, Michael J. Maloney, George S. Niedzwiecki, Elizabeth C. Roselieb, Piotr Szczurowski for judgment as a matter of law. (Finlen, Charles)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
LAVERNE ARMSTRONG, ROBBIN M.
ARMSTRONG, AND CORDERO
ARMSTRONG,
Plaintiffs,

)
)
)
)
)
v.
)
)
MICHAEL J. MALONEY, THIEN CHAIKET,
)
BRIGID M. CARLQUIEST, PIOTR
)
SZCZUROWSKI, ALAN P. LASCH, GEORGE )
S. NIEDZWIECKI, ELIZABETH C. ROSELIEB, )
DAVID L. MICHAELSEN, JOSEPHINE A.
)
CHRISTOPHER, AND CITY OF CHICAGO,
)
Defendants.
)

No. 08 CV 4398
Judge Chang
Magistrate Judge Nolan

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DEFENDANTS’ RULE 50(b) MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
Defendants, City of Chicago and Officers Michael Maloney, Brigid Carlquist, Piotr
Szczurowski, Alan Lasch, George Niedzwiecki, Elizabeth Roselieb, and Thien Chaiket
(“Defendant Officers”), collectively (“Defendants”), by one of their attorneys, Ryan Finlen, of
SWANSON MARTIN & BELL, LLP, respectfully request that this Honorable Court, pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b), enter an order granting Defendants judgment as a matter of law as to all
Plaintiffs’ claims, notwithstanding the jury’s verdict. In support of this motion, Defendants state
as follows:
1.

This case proceeded to trial commencing on January 7, 2013, on Plaintiffs’ five

claims against Defendants. Claim one, brought by all three Plaintiffs, alleged illegal entry
against all seven Defendant Officers. Claim two, brought by all three Plaintiffs, alleged illegal
occupation or search against all seven Defendant Officers. Claim three, brought by all three
Plaintiffs, alleged illegal detention against all seven Defendant Officers. Claim four, brought
only by Plaintiff Robbin Armstrong, alleged arrest against Michael Maloney and Thien Chaiket.

Claim five, brought only by Plaintiff Robbin Armstrong, alleged malicious prosecution against
Michael Maloney and Thien Chaiket.
2.

On January 15, 2013, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs on certain

claims and in favor of Defendant Officers on the remaining claims. With respect to Claim one,
the jury rendered a verdict in favor of all three plaintiffs against all seven Defendant Officers,
and the jury noted they were finding all seven Defendant Officers personally involved. With
respect to Claim two, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of all three plaintiffs against all seven
Defendant Officers, and the jury noted they were finding all seven Defendant Officers failed to
intervene as the basis for liability. With respect to Claim three, the jury rendered a verdict in
favor of all three plaintiffs against all seven Defendant Officers, and the jury noted they were
finding all seven Defendant Officers personally involved. With respect to Claim four, the jury
found in favor of Michael Maloney and Thien Chaiket. With respect to Claim five, the jury
found in favor of Michael Maloney and Thien Chaiket.
3.

In total, the jury awarded Plaintiffs $300,000.00 in compensatory damages for all

three claims in their favor. The jury itemized the awards for each Plaintiff on each of these three
claims in their verdict form. No punitive damages were assessed against any Defendant Officer
in favor of any Plaintiff.
4.

The jury’s verdict in favor of Plaintiffs on Claim one, the illegal entry claim, is

supported by legally insufficient evidence adduced by trial. Plaintiffs presented no evidence to
refute the evidence presented by Defendants negating Plaintiffs’ illegal entry claim.
Consequently, Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiffs’ Claim one.
5.

The jury’s verdict in favor of Plaintiffs on Claim two, the illegal occupation and

search claim, is also supported by legally insufficient evidence adduced by trial. Even when
2

taken in best light for Plaintiffs, the evidence presented at trial is legally insufficient to meet
Plaintiffs burden of establishing an illegal occupation and search claim. Additionally, the jury
cannot find that Defendant Officers were all liable on a failure-to-intervene theory and find that
no Defendant Officer was personally liable. Consequently, Defendants are entitled to judgment
as a matter of law on Plaintiffs’ Claim two.
6.

The jury’s verdict in favor of Plaintiffs on Claim three, the illegal detention, is

supported by legally insufficient evidence adduced by trial. Even when taken in best light for
Plaintiffs, the evidence presented at trial is legally insufficient to meet Plaintiffs burden of
establishing an illegal detention claim. Consequently, Defendants are entitled to judgment as a
matter of law on Plaintiffs’ Claim three.
7.

Because of the legally insufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict in favor

of Plaintiffs, this Court should enter an order for judgment as a matter of law in favor of
Defendants on all claims, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b). Uncontroverted
evidence entitles Defendants to judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiffs’ illegal entry claim.
Further, the evidence in best light for Plaintiffs does not support a finding in favor of Plaintiffs as
to Plaintiffs’ illegal occupation or search claim as well as Plaintiffs’ unlawful detention claim.
For the reasons articulated above, Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to all
Plaintiffs’ claims.
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court, pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b), enter an order granting Defendants judgment as a matter of law as to all
Plaintiffs’ claims, notwithstanding the jury’s verdict and for any relief as this Court deems
appropriate and just.

3

Respectfully submitted,
SWANSON, MARTIN & BELL, LLP

By:

/s/ C. Ryan Finlen
Counsel for Defendants

SWANSON, MARTIN & BELL, LLP
330 North Wabash Ave. Suite 3400
Chicago, Illinois 60611
Office: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Atty. No. 06305918
Email: [e-mail]

4