Kuri v. McDermott

Decision Date31 October 2018
Docket NumberCase No. 13 C 1653
PartiesANTHONY KURI, (a.k.a. Ramsey Qurash) Plaintiff, v. DET. McDERMOTT (Star No. 21084), DET. FOLINO (Star No. 20143) Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

Judge Edmond E. Chang

DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................1

ARGUMENT...................................................................................................2

I. NO CREDIBLE TESTIMONY SUPPORTS PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS...............2

II. NO REASONABLE JURY COULD FIND IN PLAINTIFF'S FAVOR ON HIS DUE PROCESS CLAIM.........................................................5

III. NO REASONABLE JURY COULD CONCLUDE THAT DEFENDANTS LACKED PROBABLE CAUSE.....................................12

IV. NO REASONABLE JURY COULD FIND DEFENDANTS LIABLE ON PLAINTIFF'S DERIVATIVE CLAIMS................................15

V. DEFENDANT MCDERMOTT'S PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT.................16

CONCLUSION...............................................................................................16

CASES

Avery v. City of Milwaukee, 847 F.3d 433, 439 (7th Cir. 2017)...........................................5

Burger v. Int'l Union of Elevator Constructors Local No. 2, 498 F.3d 750, 753 (7th Cir.2007)......2

C.f. Newsome v. McCabe, 319 F.3d 301, 303 (7th Cir. 2003)...........................................10

Carvajal v. Dominguez, 542 F.3d 561, 570 (7th Cir. 2008)...............................................8

Fabiano v. City of Palos Hills, 336 Ill. App. 3d 635, 642 (1st Dist. 2002)..............................12

Florek v. Vill. of Mundelein, Ill., 649 F.3d 594, 601 (7th Cir. 2011).....................................1

Gill v. City of Milwaukee, 850 F.3d 335, 343 (7th Cir. 2017).........................................8, 9

Gossmeyer v. McDonald, 128 F.3d 481, 495 (7th Cir. 1997)............................................16

Hall v. Forest River, Inc., 536 F.3d 615, 619 (7th Cir. 2008).............................................1

Hammond Group, Ltd. v. Spalding & Evenflo Cos., 69 F.3d 845, 848 (7th Cir. 1995).................1

Harper v. Albert, 400 F.3d 1052, 1064 (7th Cir. 2005)...................................................15

Harris v. Kuba, 486 F.3d 101, 1017 (7th Cir. 2007)......................................................11

Heft v. Moore, 351 F.3d 278, 284 (7th Cir. 2003)..........................................................1

Holmes v. Vill. of Hoffman Estates, 511 F.3d 673, 680 (7th Cir.2007).................................13

Hossack v. Floor Covering Ass'n. of Joliet, Inc., 492 F.3d 853, 859 (7th Cir. 2007)..................1

Hyung Seok Koh v. Graf, 307 F. Supp. 3d 827, 858 (N.D. Ill. 2018).................................5, 7

Indianapolis Minority Contractors Ass'n, Inc. v. Wiley, 187 F.3d 743, 754 (7th Cir. 1999).........15

Johnson v. Saville, 575 F.3d 656, 659 (7th Cir. 2009)....................................................13

Kuhn v. Goodlow, 678 F.3d 552, 555-56 (7th Cir. 2012)................................................16

Logan v. Caterpillar, Inc., 246 F.3d 912, 926 (7th Cir. 2001)...........................................12

Manuel v. City of Joliet, 137 S. Ct. 911 (2017)............................................................12

Matthews v. City of East St. Louis, 675 F.3d 703, 707-08 (7th Cir. 2016)..............................13

Petty v. City of Chicago, 754 F.3d 416, 423 (7th Cir. 2014)...............................................5

Reynolds v. Jamison, 488 F.3d 756, 762 (7th Cir.2007).............................................13, 14

Sang Ken Kim v. City of Chicago, 368 Ill. App. 3d 648, 655, 858 N.E.2d 569, 575 (1st Dist. 2006).................................................................................13

Saunders-El v. Rohde, 778 F.3d 556, 562 (7th Cir. 2015)................................................11

U.S. ex rel. Lucas v. Regan, 503 F.2d 1, 3 n.1 (2d Cir. 1974).............................................8

United States v. Almendares, 397 F.3d 653, 664 (8th Cir. 2005)..........................................8

United States v. Blake, 2:16-CR-74 JVB, 2017 WL 6527296, at *3 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 21, 2017)......8

United States v. Gordon, 844 F.2d 1397, 1403 (9th Cir. 1988)...........................................8

United States v. O'Hara, 301 F.3d 563, 569 (7th Cir. 2002).............................................11

United States v. Ramirez, 810 F.2d 1338, 1343 (5th Cir. 1987)..........................................8

United States v. Rogers, 960 F.2d 1501, 1510 (10th Cir. 1992)..........................................8

United States v. Word, 806 F.2d 658, 665 (6th Cir. 1986).................................................8

Whitehead v. Bond, 680 F.3d 919, 925 (7th Cir. 2012)....................................................2

Wrice v. Burge, 187 F. Supp. 3d 939, 953 (N.D. Ill. 2015)................................................5

Defendants, Timothy McDermott and John Folino, Jr. ("Defendants"),1 by and through their undersigned attorneys, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50(b), hereby move for judgment as a matter of law in their favor, and against the Plaintiff. In support thereof, Defendants state as follows:

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff's claims against Defendants include Section 1983 violation of due process, unlawful pretrial detention, conspiracy to deprive constitutional rights, failure to intervene and state law claim of malicious prosecution. At the close of Plaintiff's case and before the case was submitted to the jury, Defendants moved for a directed verdict pursuant to Rule 50(a). (ECF 308). The Court deferred ruling on the motion. Judgment was entered on October 3, 2018. Defendants now renew their judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50(b).

Rule 50(b) permits the Court to enter judgment as a matter of law if a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonably jury to find for that party on an issue. Hammond Group, Ltd. v. Spalding & Evenflo Cos., 69 F.3d 845, 848 (7th Cir. 1995). In deciding a motion for judgment as a matter of law, "the question is simply whether the evidence as a whole, when combined with all reasonable inferences permissibly drawn from that evidence, is sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to find in favor of the plaintiff." Hall v. Forest River, Inc., 536 F.3d 615, 619 (7th Cir. 2008) (citing Hossack v. Floor Covering Ass'n. of Joliet, Inc., 492 F.3d 853, 859 (7th Cir. 2007)). To avoid a directed verdict, "plaintiff must offer substantial affirmative evidence to support [his] argument." Florek v. Vill. of Mundelein, Ill., 649 F.3d 594, 601 (7th Cir. 2011) (quoting Heft v. Moore, 351 F.3d 278, 284 (7th Cir. 2003)). Because no legally sufficient evidence supports thejury's verdict on any of Plaintiff's theories of liability, this motion should be granted.

ARGUMENT

I. NO CREDIBLE TESTIMONY SUPPORTS PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS

To start, it is undeniable that no reasonable jury could find in favor of Plaintiff on any of his claims without necessarily finding support in the testimony of Zay Russell and Tony Fernandez, the two witnesses who identified Plaintiff as one of the offenders in the murder of Guarv Patel. The circumstances surrounding Russell and Fernandez's identification of Plaintiff is the foundation for Plaintiff's fabricated evidence claim, Brady claim, unlawful detention claim, and malicious prosecution claim. Because Defendants made no admissions to any of the misconduct alleged by Plaintiff, and Plaintiff could not testify to any circumstances of Russell or Fernandez's identifications himself, Russell and Fernandez were the only witnesses for whom the jury could rely on in finding in favor of Plaintiff on any of his claims. Nevertheless, both Russell and Fernandez testified inconsistently with their own testimony multiple times, under oath, and on material issues, including at trial, such that the jury could not reasonably find any of their testimony sufficiently credible to establish liability on any of the elements of Plaintiff's claims. While the Court ordinarily does not make credibility determinations when deciding a Rule 50 motion, the Court may disregard testimony if "reasonable persons could not believe" it because it "contradicts indisputable physical facts or laws." Whitehead v. Bond, 680 F.3d 919, 925 (7th Cir. 2012); Burger v. Int'l Union of Elevator Constructors Local No. 2, 498 F.3d 750, 753 (7th Cir.2007) (the objective evidence must show that it would be unreasonable to believe a critical witness for one side). Here, both witnesses testified to facts that are necessarily inconsistent with their earlier testimony and objectively unbelievable.

As for Russell, he told the jury that he provided the police the names Rowdy and Lil David as the offenders, and that after he provided the names, he identified their photos. (Trial Transcript, 846: 21-22; 862:17-867:25, attached hereto as Ex. A). Russell did not identify either of the Defendants, and, despite Plaintiff's argument to the contrary, testified that the police never told him that if he made the identifications, Fernandez would get money from the victim compensation fund. (Ex. A, 842:10-13). Russell then testified that the police did not tell him who to pick out. (Ex. A, 838:19-841:4). In another breath, however, Russell told the jury that the police did tell him who to pick. (Ex. A, 854:10-15; 879:11-17). Russell did not offer any explanation for that conflicting testimony. Quite obviously, both statements cannot be true. They directly contradict each other. Either the police told him who to pick or they did not....

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT