Hall v. City of Fairfield

MARKUS M. HALL, MONIQUE G. RANKIN,LINDSEY K. SANDERS, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF FAIRFIELD, OFFICER NICK McDOWELL,OFFICER CHRIS GRIMM, OFFICERS TOM SHACKFORD,OFFICER ZACK SANDOVAL,AND SERGEANT STEVE CRANE, Defendants.

No. 2:10-cv-0508 DAD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dated: March 31, 2014

ORDER

This matter came before the court on July 12, 2013, for hearing of defendants' renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law ("JMOL") pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) or, in the alternative, for a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a), and motion to amend the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). (Doc. No. 216.) The parties have previously consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Doc. No. 175.) Attorney Garret Murai appeared at the hearing on behalf of the plaintiffs. Attorney Kevin Gilbert appeared on behalf of the defendants. Oral argument was heard and defendants' motion was taken under submission. For the reasons set forth below,defendants' renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new trial, will be denied.¹

BACKGROUND

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs in whose favor the jury returned the challenged verdict, and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party, as the court must, the evidence presented at the trial in this action is summarized as follows. On July 4, 2009, at approximately 12:55 a.m., Markus Hall ("Hall"), Monique Rankin ("Rankin") and Lindsey Sanders ("Sanders") (collectively "Plaintiffs"), who are all African American, arrived at an In-N-Out Burger fast food restaurant located in Fairfield, California, along with Rankin's younger sister - Jasmine Rankin ("Jasmine"), the driver of their vehicle -Lauren Johnson ("Lauren"), and Rachelle Smith ("Rachelle").

Just prior to the arrival of plaintiffs and their companions, the manager of the In-N-Out Burger, Marc Young ("Young"), had reported to police a disturbance involving a group of young African American males and females.² At approximately 12:55 a.m. the Fairfield Police dispatcher sent out the call "BM's [Black males] and BF's [Black Females]," "Throwing food around," and "Ref [refusing] to leave." When plaintiffs arrived at the restaurant Rankin's younger sister, Jasmine, and Lauren (the driver of their vehicle) went to the counter to place their order. At approximately 12:56 a.m. plaintiffs sat down with Rachelle at a table near the entrance.

Immediately after plaintiffs sat down, at approximately 12:59 a.m., Fairfield Police officers Nick McDowell, ("McDowell"), Chris Grimm, ("Grimm"), Tom Shackford ("Shackford"), and Zack Sandoval ("Sandoval"), entered the In-N-Out Burger in response toYoung's call.³ Young informed Officer McDowell there had been a disturbance inside and that because the dining area had gotten "out of control," he wanted those inside to either place an order or leave. The officers did not ask Young what, if anything, the plaintiffs had done and conducted no other investigation of any kind. The In-N-Out manager, Young, then walked to plaintiffs' table and quickly told them to "order or leave." Plaintiffs attempted to explain that they had just arrived and were waiting for two other members of their group who were at the counter placing an order. However, Young simply walked away from the table.⁴

As Young began to turn away from plaintiffs' table, Officer McDowell immediately approached plaintiffs and told them they had to leave. Plaintiffs again explained that they had just arrived, were waiting for two members of their group who were at the counter ordering food and asked why they had to leave. Officer McDowell told them it did not matter why they were being told to leave and that they were no longer welcome there. Within one minute of McDowell ordering them to leave, plaintiffs got up from their chairs and began to exit. Rachelle turned back and stated that she was going to the counter to place an order. However, another officer prevented her from doing so by grabbing her arm and directing her towards the exit.⁵ Plaintiffs then exited the restaurant into the parking lot to wait for the other members of their group near the vehicle they had arrived in since Lauren, the driver, was still inside waiting for her order.

Once plaintiffs were outside, Officer McDowell asked Young if he would be willing to sign a citizen's arrest form for the plaintiffs and Young said he would. Officer McDowell then returned to the parking lot and told plaintiffs that leaving the restaurant was not sufficient and that they had to leave the parking lot. Plaintiffs were directed by the officers to leave the In-N-Outproperty completely and were instructed to "walk." Plaintiffs declined, explaining that they had done nothing wrong and were waiting for the driver of the car who was still inside waiting for her food order. Officer McDowell returned inside to have Young sign the citizen's arrests forms. According to Young's trial testimony: 1) he did not recall Officer McDowell explaining the citizen's arrest forms to him; 2) he was not informed of what crime he was having plaintiffs arrested for when he signed the forms; and 3) he had not observed what, if anything, was occurring in the parking lot nor was he told that he needed to. At approximately this point in the events, Fairfield Police Sergeant Steve Crane ("Crane") arrived at the In-N-Out Burger. Officer McDowell briefed Sergeant Crane on the events and Crane ordered the officers to arrest the plaintiffs based solely on the information he had received from McDowell. Officer McDowell arrested Rachelle Smith, Officer Grimm arrested Rankin, Sergeant Crane and Officer Shackford arrested Sanders and Officer Sandoval arrested Hall. During these arrests plaintiff Hall was taken to the ground and plaintiff Sanders was thrown into the side of a police car.⁶

Plaintiffs were handcuffed and loaded into a police van which then drove to a nearby parking lot. There, they were taken out of the van and photographed by police. After approximately a thirty minute delay, plaintiffs were transported to the county jail. They were released at approximately 10:00 a.m. that morning. Plaintiffs were charged with criminal trespass in violation of California Penal Code § 602.1(a) and resisting arrest under California Penal Code § 148(a)(1). However, all criminal charges brought against plaintiffs were later dismissed.

Plaintiffs filed this civil rights action on March 2, 2010. (Doc. No. 1.) Through various pre-trial motions and rulings the action was eventually narrowed so that the case proceeded to trial only on the following claims: false arrest without probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment against defendant McDowell; excessive use of force in violation of the Fourth Amendment against defendant Crane; and interference with plaintiffs' Constitutional or statutory rights in violation of California Civil Code § 52.1 against all defendants.

The jury trial commenced on April 29, 2013. At the conclusion of the evidence, counsel for defendants made an oral JMOL motion pursuant to Rule 50(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. No. 193.) At that time defense counsel argued that the evidence presented by plaintiffs at trial established that there was probable cause supporting their arrest, that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and that the defendants did not violate California Civil Code § 52.1. Defendants' JMOL motion was denied. (Doc. No. 193.)

The jury was instructed and began its deliberations on May 7, 2013. (Doc. No. 195.) On May 9, 2013, the jury returned its verdict finding that defendants violated plaintiffs' rights under the Fourth Amendment by falsely arresting them without probable cause. (Doc. No. 207 at 2.) However, the jury did not find by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant Crane used excessive force in arresting plaintiff Sanders and did not find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendants violated California Civil Code § 52.1. (Id.) In keeping with the jury's verdict, judgment was entered on May 13, 2013. (Doc. No. 209.)

Defendants filed their renewed JMOL motion pursuant to Rule 50(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on June 10, 2013. (Defs.' Ren. Mot. for JMOL (Doc. No. 216).) Plaintiffs filed an opposition on June 28, 2013. (Pls.' Opp.'n. (Doc. No. 217).) Defendants filed a reply on July 3, 2013. (Defs.' Reply (Doc. No. 220).)

STANDARD

Rule 50(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides as follows:

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.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) governs renewed motions for judgment as a matter of law made under Rule 50(a) and provides that the court may: "(1) allow judgment on the verdict, if the jury returned a verdict; (2) order a new trial; or (3) direct the entry of judgment as a matter of law." The Ninth Circuit has held:

A Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law is not a freestanding motion. Rather, it is a renewed Rule 50(a) motion. Under Rule 50, a party must make a Rule 50(a) motion for judgment as a matter of law before a case is submitted to the jury. If the judge denies or defers ruling on the motion, and if the jury then returns a verdict against the moving party, the party may renew its motion under Rule 50(b). Because it is a renewed motion, a proper post-verdict Rule 50(b) motion is limited to the grounds asserted in the pre-deliberation Rule 50(a) motion.

...