Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ritchie v. State

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

March 30, 2017

CAROLYN C. RITCHIE, Plaintiff,
v.
THE STATE OF HAWAI`I, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY; and NEAL WAGATSUMA, in his official capacity as Warden of the Kauai Community Correctional Center, Department of Public Safety, State of Hawai`i, and in his individual capacity, Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S ORAL MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

          Leslie E. Kobayashi United States District Judge

         Before the Court is Plaintiff Carolyn L. Ritchie's (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (“Motion”), presented orally on December 7, 2016. [Minutes, filed 12/7/16 (dkt. no. 349) (“12/7/16 Minutes”).] The same day, the Court heard oral argument on the Motion from Plaintiff. Plaintiff filed a memorandum in support of her Motion on December 14, 2016, and Defendants State of Hawai`i, Department of Public Safety(“DPS”) and Neal Wagatsuma, in his individual capacity (“Wagatsuma” and collectively “Defendants”), filed a memorandum in opposition on December 20, 2016[1] [Dkt. Nos. 384, 396.] After careful consideration of the Motion, supporting and opposing memoranda, and the relevant legal authority, Plaintiff's Motion is HEREBY DENIED for the reasons set forth below.

         BACKGROUND

         On January 4, 2016, Plaintiff filed her Second Amended Complaint. [Dkt. no. 152.] Jury selection took place on November 1, 2016, and trial commenced the same day. [Minutes, filed 11/1/16 (dkt. no. 302).] The trial proceeded on the following claims: unlawful retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-1, et seq., against DPS (“Count I”); violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Wagatsuma (based on violation of the First Amendment to the United Constitution) (“Count II”); unlawful incitement or attempted incitement of retaliation in violation of Haw. Rev. Stat. § 378-2 against Wagatsuma (“Count III”); intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”) against Wagatsuma (“Count V”); and defamation against Wagatsuma (“Count VI”).[2] On November 30, 2016, Plaintiff voluntarily withdrew Count VI with prejudice. [Minutes, filed 11/30/16 (dkt. no. 337).]

         Plaintiff rested her case on November 30, 2016, [Minutes, filed 11/30/16 (dkt. no. 336), ] and Defendants rested their case on December 7, 2016 [Minutes, filed 12/7/16 (dkt. no. 349)]. Closing arguments took place on December 12, 2016, and the jury began deliberations the same day. [Minutes, filed 12/12/16 (dkt. no. 360.] On December 20, 2016, after sixteen days of trial, the jury reached a verdict. [Minutes, filed 12/20/16 (dkt. no. 397).] The jury found in favor of Defendants on all counts. See Special Verdict Form as to Defendant State of Hawai`i, Department of Public Safety, filed 12/20/16 (dkt. no. 399); Special Verdict Form as to Defendant Wagatsuma, filed 12/20/16 (dkt. no. 400). Plaintiff ask this Court to enter judgment as a matter of law in her favor on all counts.

         STANDARD

         Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 provides, in relevant part:

(a) Judgment as a Matter of law.
(1) In General. 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 evidentiary 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 against the party on a claim or defense that, under the controlling law, can be maintained or defeated only with a favorable finding on that issue.
(2) Motion. A motion for judgment as a matter of law may be made at any time before the case is submitted to the jury. The motion must specify the judgment sought and the law and facts that entitle the movant to the judgment.
(b) Renewing the Motion After Trial; Alternative Motion for a New Trial. If the court does not grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law made under Rule 50(a), 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. No later than 28 days after the entry of judgment - or if the motion addresses a jury issue not decided by a verdict, no later than 28 days after the jury was discharged - the movant may file a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.