Heriberto Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles, 891 F.3d 776 (2018)

Citation: Heriberto Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles, 891 F.3d 776 (2018)
Parent Document: Heriberto Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles, 891 F.3d 776 (2018)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2018-05-30
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4502306/heriberto-rodriguez-v-county-of... ↗

Full Text

1,019 chars

Second, appellants argue that the district court erred in
denying their Rule 50(b) motion, based on qualified
immunity, for judgment as a matter of law. Because the jury
found for appellees on their excessive force claims, we
“construe the trial evidence in the light most favorable to
[appellees] in determining whether [their] rights were clearly
established.” Morales v. Fry, 873 F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir.
2017). “Further, unlike a motion to dismiss or motion for
summary judgment, we must defer to the facts as they were
reasonably found by the jury . . . .” A.D. v. Cal. Highway
Patrol, 712 F.3d 446, 459 (9th Cir. 2013). We accept the
jury’s findings of fact, “including the [appellants’] subjective
intent,” unless the appellants demonstrate that those findings
were unsupported by the evidence. Id. at 458–59. But while
“only the jury can decide the disputed factual issues, . . . only
the judge can decide whether the right was clearly established
once the factual issues are resolved.” Morales, 873 F.3d at
823.

Other Sections in This Document (185)

Full Text