Flores v. Murphy Company

Filing 101

ORDER: Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. (50)(b) or for a New Trial 98 is DENIED. Signed on 6/6/2014 by Judge Owen M. Panner. (dkj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
MEDFORD DIVISION
THOMAS FLORES,
1:12-cv-2156-CL
Plaintiffs,
ORDER

v.

MURPHY COMPANY, and Oregon
business corporation, dba
MURPHY VENEER,
Defendant.

PANNER, District Judge:

Plaintiff brings claims for violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the Family Medical Leave Att, and their state
law equivalents.

The jury found for Defendant on all claims.

Plaintiff now moves to reconsider the denial of his motion
for judgment as a matter of law.
1 - ORDER

Alternatively, Plaintiff seeks a

new trial.

The motion is DENIED.
Legal Standard

"'Judgment as a matter of law is appropriate when the
evidence, construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party, permits only one reasonable conclusion, which is contrary
to the jury's verdict.'" Hagen v. City of Eugene, 736 F.3d 1251,
1256 (9th Cir. 2013)

(quoting Omega Envtl., Inc. v. Gilbarco,

Inc., 127 F. 3d 1157, 1161 (9th Cir. 1997)).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59, a trial court may
order a new trial if the jury's verdict is against the clear
weight of the evidence, if based on false evidence, or would cause
a miscarriage of justice.
724, 729 (9th Cir. 2007)

Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d
(internal citation omitted).
Discussion

Proof of each of Plaintiff's claims rested substantially on
Plaintiff's own testimony.

The verdict indicates that the jury

did not find Plaintiff credible.

The jury could reasonably find

that Plaintiff had not proved that he requested a reasonable
accommodation.

Similarly, the jury court reasonably find that the

-reason for Plaintiff's absence was unrelated to a disability.
Substantial evidence supports the jury's verdict.

Judgment as a

matter of law is therefore inappropriate.
Plaintiff bases his request for a new trial entirely on the
arguments presented in support of his motion for judgment as a
matter of law.

There i.s no indication that the jury's verdict was

against the clear weight of evidence, based on false evidence, or
would cause a miscarriage of justice.
2 - ORDER

I find no basis for

granting a new trial.
Conclusion
Plaintiff'~

Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

(50) (b) or for a New Trial (#98)

DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this

_/e_

OWEN M. PANNER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

·3 - ORDER

is