Echevarria v. Insight Medical, P.C. et al

Filing 80

OPINION AND ORDER re: 65 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law Pursuant to FRCP 50(a), 50(b) and 59(e) filed by Insight Medical, P.C., Steve Okhravi, Al Okhravi: that the parties submit supplemental letter briefing on o r before October 20, 2014, on the following issues: Whether the issue of numerosity was a question for the jury; Whether the parties waived or forfeited any rights they might otherwise have had to jury consideration of the numerosity issue, either by not submitting proposed requests to charge on that issue or by failing to object to the absence of an instruction on that issue; Whether, if the numerosity issue should have been submitted to the jury, the parties can now agree to have the Court decide the issue; and Whether, if the numerosity issue should have been submitted to the jury, a new trial is warranted. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 10/6/2014) (tn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------X
:
INGRIT ECHEVARRIA,
:
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
INSIGHT MEDICAL, P.C., AL OKHRAVI,
:
:
and DR. STEVE OKHRAVI, individually,
:
Defendants. :
X
-----------------------------------------------------

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #: _________________
DATE FILED: ______________
October 6, 2014

13 Civ. 3710 (KPF)
OPINION AND ORDER

KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, District Judge:
The Court is in receipt of Defendants’ post-trial motions, including its
motion for judgment as a matter of law in favor of Defendants. (Dkt. #65).
Having reviewing the motions, and after sua sponte exercising its discretion to
review the jury instructions, the Court finds it appropriate to allow the parties
the opportunity to address certain issues identified herein. See Hartline v.
Gallo, No. 03 Civ. 1974 (DRH), 2010 WL 3119786, at *7-9 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4,
2010) (permitting the parties opportunity to address whether omissions in jury
instructions were error sufficient to grant a new trial where such omissions
raised by court in sua sponte review); see also Arnold v. County of Nassau, 89
F. Supp. 2d 285, 297-98 (E.D.N.Y. 2000), rev’d on other grounds, 252 F.3d 599
(2d Cir. 2001) (same) (collecting cases).
Specifically, in the course of resolving these motions, the Court observed
that neither party submitted a proposed jury instruction concerning the

numerosity element of Plaintiff’s claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17, nor did the parties object to the failure
to include any discussion of that element in the jury instructions, even though
the Supreme Court has found that “the threshold number of employees for
application of Title VII is an element of a plaintiff’s claim for relief, not a
jurisdictional issue.” Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 516 (2006). In
light of these facts, the Court ORDERS that the parties submit supplemental
letter briefing on or before October 20, 2014, on the following issues:
1. Whether the issue of numerosity was a question for the jury;
2. Whether the parties waived or forfeited any rights they might
otherwise have had to jury consideration of the numerosity issue,
either by not submitting proposed requests to charge on that issue or
by failing to object to the absence of an instruction on that issue;
3. Whether, if the numerosity issue should have been submitted to the
jury, the parties can now agree to have the Court decide the issue;
and
4. Whether, if the numerosity issue should have been submitted to the
jury, a new trial is warranted.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 6, 2014
New York, New York

__________________________________
KATHERINE POLK FAILLA
United States District Judge

2