Legal Opinion

Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles

District Court, C.D. California

Decided May 29, 2014No. Case No. 10-6342-CBM (AJWx)PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS (1) FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW; (2) MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT AS TO MOVING DEFENDANTS AND FOR A NEW TRIAL FOR THESE DEFENDANTS AFTER RESOLUTION OF INTERLOCUTORY QUALIFIED IMMUNITY APPEALS; (3) TO VACATE PUNITIVE DAMAGES; and (4) FOR A NEW TRIAL PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. 59(A).

CONSUELO B. MARSHALL, District Judge.

Before the Court are four post-trial motions filed by Defendants:

1. Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b) (“JMOL”). (Docket No. 637.)

2. Motion to Vacate Judgment and for New Trial (“Motion to Vacate”). (Docket No. 638.)

2Cases cited59 opinions

  1. Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. Anderson v. CreightonSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  3. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
  4. Mitchell v. ForsythSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  5. Hudson v. McMillianSupreme Court of the United States · 1992

54 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Robert Reese, Jr. v. County of SacramentoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2018
  2. (PC) Phelps v. PerezDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2021
  3. Atherley v. KernanDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2021
  4. Estate of Joel Reyes Munoz by its successor in interest Leticia Duran Martinez v. The United States of AmericaDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2024
  5. Estate of Xander Mann v. County of StanislausDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2023

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API