In Marroquin v. City of Los Angeles, published August 27, 2024, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court orders granting partial new trial and denial of a motion for relief from judgment based on newly-discovered evidence. The plaintiff sued the defendant city and an officer for alleged use of excessive force when the officer allegedly fired a less-lethal round at the plaintiff during a gathering after a basketball championship win. The officer and the plaintiff disputed whether the officer fired the round at the plaintiff. At trial, the jury found in the plaintiff's favor on her claims against the officer for excessive force and negligence, and on her negligence claim against the city. The defendants were found not liable for battery. The verdict form asked the jury to assess damages against each defendant. The jury awarded the plaintiff $1.00 in damages against the officer and $1.5 million in damages. Both sides moved for new trial. Both agreed the jury acted improperly in apportioning the damages between the city and the officer. The defendants also filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. The district court denied that motion, but agreed that the inconsistent awards were irreconcilable and that damages should be awarded for a single injury, not apportioned between defendants. The court granted a new trial limited to damages. Before the second trial, the defendants moved under FRCP 60(b)(2) for relief from judgment based on two "previously undiscovered" surveillance tapes from the sporting venue that, they contended, showed that the officer could not possibly have discharged the round that injured the plaintiff. The officer declared he discovered the footage when working off-duty providing security for the venue, but did not discover the video until after the trial. The district court denied the motion on the ground that the defendants failed to show reasonable diligence in discovering the video.
The 9th Circuit agreed with the district court. Although a district court may grant a new trial or all or some of the issues, the decision to grant a partial new trial is cabined by the 7th Amendment, which prohibits ordering a new trial limited to damages when damages issues are so interwoven with liability issues that the former cannot be submitted to the jury independently of the latter without confusion or uncertainty. In addition, when a plaintiff seeks punitive or exemplary damages, ordering a partial trial limited to damages is impermissible, because liability issues are necessarily interwoven with damages issues because the damages depend upon the degree of culpability of the defendant. Further, the issue of liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress is intertwined with the damages issue because the trier of fact can find liability only if it first finds the plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress, and the defendant would be entitled to present evidence that they did not inflict sufficient damages. Issues may also be intertwined where the jury's mistake in awarding damages tainted the liability finding. Here, the plaintiff's claim for emotional distress did not depend on the events leading to her injury. Instead, she sought pain and suffering from her physical injury. Therefore, the liability issues concerning the officer's conduct were distinct and separable from the emotional distress damages. Further, the defendants did not identify any evidence showing the jury's improper apportionment of damages tainted the liability finding. The appellate court agreed with the district court that the jury's confusion on damages was caused by the improper instruction on the verdict form to apportion damages. The court further held the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Rule 60 motion, due to failure to show reasonable diligence. The court rejected the defendants' argument that there is a "conclusive evidence" exception to the reasonable diligence requirement when new evidence would conclusively disprove the other side's case.
Comments