1/9/2024 0 Comments Jmol first glance![]() Nelson testified that he had visited a firing range in Virginia earlier that 3 day and still had the gun, which was registered in Maryland, in his possession. During a search of Nelson’s vehicle, officers discovered a backpack containing a gun with a loaded magazine. An officer notified him that he was under arrest and Nelson exited the vehicle. Nelson also refused to get out of his vehicle to allow the search to proceed unless the officers arrested him. Nelson testified that he refused to consent to the search, though Officer Foster disputed this. The officers performed a window tint test on Nelson’s car, notified him that the windows were too dark, and then asked to search his vehicle. BACKGROUND On or about June 19, 2008, Marcus Nelson was driving in Washington, D.C., when he was pulled over by at least two police officers. 2007) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted). Judgment as a matter of law is appropriate only if the evidence and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom are so one-sided that reasonable men and women could not have reached a verdict in plaintiff’s favor.” Muldrow ex rel. Thus, while a court should examine all evidence in the record, “the court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and it may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence.” Id. at 150 (internal quotation marks omitted). The standard for granting JMOL “mirrors” that for granting summary judgment “the inquiry under each is the same.” Id. 133, 149 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. Courts “should render judgment as a matter of law when a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that 2 party on that issue.” Reeves v. 471, 486 n.5 (2008) (“A motion under Rule 50(b) is not allowed unless the movant sought relief on similar grounds under Rule 50(a) before the case was submitted to the jury.”). (“he movant cannot assert a ground that was not included in the earlier motion.”) Exxon Shipping Co. However, a district court may only grant a Rule 50(b) motion “on the grounds advanced in the preverdict motion, because the former is conceived of as only a renewal of the latter.” 9B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. The movant may file a “renewed” Rule 50(b) motion for JMOL “o later than 28 days after the entry of judgment. If the Court does not grant such a motion during trial, “the court is considered to have submitted the action to the jury subject to the court’s later deciding the legal questions raised by the motion.” Id. LEGAL STANDARD Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) provides If a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient basis to find for the party on that issue, the court may (A) resolve the issue against the party and (B) grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law. ![]() Because the defendant failed, during the first trial, to move for JMOL on the basis of qualified immunity, the Court rejects defendant’s second argument as well. Because a reasonable jury could find that Foster violated Rubin’s Fourth Amendment rights when he detained and handcuffed her for two hours during the search of her apartment, the Court rejects the first argument. Second, Foster argues that he is, in any event, entitled to qualified immunity. Foster argues that Rubin failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish the unreasonableness of her detention during the search. The Court now considers Foster’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL). The parties opted not to pursue a third trial and, pursuant to a consent motion, the Court entered judgment in favor of Rubin on March 22, 2013. A partial retrial resulted in a mistrial. However, the jury found against plaintiff Nelson with respect to his false arrest and imprisonment claim and one Fourth Amendment claim and hung with respect to Nelson’s other claims. The jury awarded Rubin $12,500 in compensatory damages. A jury found that defendant Foster violated Rubin’s Fourth Amendment rights when he “unreasonably detain her” during a search of her home. 09-1594 (RCL) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiffs Marcus Nelson and his fiancé Koryn Rubin sued the District of Columbia and District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department Officers Walter Pankowski and Nathan Foster for false arrest and imprisonment and Fourth Amendment violations. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants. 71 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MARCUS NELSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |