Rodriguez v. Abbatiello, 3:97-CV-00201 (WWE).
| Decision Date | 26 October 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 3:97-CV-00201 (WWE).,3:97-CV-00201 (WWE). |
| Citation | 30 F.Supp.2d 274 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
| Parties | Jaime RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. Salvatore ABBATIELLO, Jr., Defendant. |
Wesley S. Spears, Hartford, CT, for Plaintiff.
Jeffrey G. Schwartz, Law Offices of Scott B. Clendaniel, Hartford, CT, for Defendant.
This civil action, in its essence, is a police misconduct case, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and state law. A four day jury trial was held in June. The jury found in favor of plaintiff Rodriquez on the state law claim of assault and/or battery, and further determined that punitive damages should be awarded, in an amount to be determined by the Court. Defendant Abbatiello moves for Judgment After Trial, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50(b)(1)(c), 51 and 52. He asserts that the jury's verdict in favor of the plaintiff is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity; there was plain error in the jury charge as to punitive damages; and, finally, punitive damages are not available in a case of negligent assault.
I. The Standards of Review As Applied
Rule 50(a)(2) provides:
(2) Motions for judgment as a matter of law may be made at any time before submission of the case to the jury. Such a motion shall specify the judgment sought and the law and facts on which the moving party is entitled to judgment.
The purpose of requiring that specific grounds be stated in such a motion is to fully apprise the trial court of the movant's position. Ralston Purina Co. v. Parsons Feed & Farm Supply, Inc., 364 F.2d 57, 59-60 (8th Cir.1966) (). The provision of this Rule that a motion made thereunder shall state the specific grounds therefor is mandatory and, generally speaking, may not be waived. Budge Mfg. Co. v. United States, 280 F.2d 414, 415-16 (3d Cir.1960). See also Cruz v. Local Union No. 3 of Intern. Broth., 34 F.3d 1148 (2d Cir.1994) (); Samuels v. Air Transport Local 504, 992 F.2d 12, 15 (2d Cir.), cert. denied 148 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2177 (1993) ()
A review of the transcript in the present case reveals that defendant's motions consisted of the following at the close of the plaintiff's case:
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay. I also would like to make, for the record, a motion for dismissal of the case based on the evidence submitted so far.
At the end of the case, Mr. Schwartz restated his earlier motion:
MR. SCHWARTZ: The only motion I have is just a renewal of a motion for judgment and/or dismissal for insufficiency or on the weight of the evidence as to these counts.
These motions do not "specify the judgment sought and the law and the facts on which the moving party is entitled to judgment." Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a)(2). As noted above, the purpose of requiring that specific grounds be stated in such a motion is to fully apprise the trial court of the movant's position. Plainly, these two de minimis "motions" fall woefully short of the mandatory requirements of Rule 50(a)(2). In the present case, the trial court was left to discern for itself exactly what evidence was allegedly insufficient and what boundaries of law remained unfilled or unsatisfied, as there was no direction from the moving attorney. The facts and law upon which the moving party should have fully delineated were completely absent. As no manifest injustice will result to the moving party, for this reason alone, this Motion may be denied. See Samuels and Cruz, supra.
The Court will, however, in a sense of judicial equity, consider defendant's other claims with the caveat that such is legally unnecessary under Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a)(2). Accordingly, the treatment of the other claims will be brief.
Because a judgment as a matter of law intrudes upon the rightful province of the jury, it is highly disfavored. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has repeatedly emphasized that, when confronted with such a motion, the court must carefully scrutinize the proof with credibility assessment made against the moving party and all inferences drawn against the moving party. Luciano v. The Olsten Corp., 110 F.3d 210, 214-15 (2d Cir.1997); EEOC v. Ethan Allen, Inc., 44 F.3d 116, 119 (2d Cir.1994). A district court may not grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law unless "the evidence is such that ... there can be one conclusion as to the verdict that reasonable [persons] could have reached." Cruz, 34 F.3d at 1154-55. See also U.S. v. One Parcel of Property Located at 121 Allen Place, Hartford, Connecticut, 75 F.3d 118 (2d Cir.1996); Samuels, 992 F.2d at 14.
This is patently not such a case. The jury could have reasonably found, under the instructions given on assault and battery, that the force used by the officer, which resulted in a head injury requiring eighteen stitches and led to blurred visions and headaches, was manifestly an assault and battery under Connecticut law
Turning now to the specific points raised in defendant's motion for judgment, we first consider the doctrine of qualified immunity, which the moving papers misstate as sovereign immunity.
Connecticut courts describe the conduct deserving of qualified immunity as that of and are not deserving of qualified immunity. Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161, 544 A.2d 1185, (1988). The sine qua non is the existence of a public/private duty. Only the taking of an action which inures to the benefit of the public is qualifiedly immune. See Gordon, 208 Conn. at 166-170, 544 A.2d 1185, and cases collected therein. A strictly private act, in contradistinction, has been recognized where it would be apparent to a public officer that his or her actions would likely to subject an identifiable person to imminent harm. Shore v. Stonington, 187 Conn. 147, 153, 444 A.2d 1379 (1982).
The defendant is not qualifiedly immune under the facts of this case. The distinction between a duty owed to the public and that owed to an identified individual could not be clearer than herein. It should have been manifestly clear to defendant that the extreme beating he rained upon plaintiff clearly violated Connecticut law.
In his Motion for Judgment After Trial defendant also asserts that certain instructions in the jury charge on punitive damages were erroneous, in that they applied a federal, rather than a state, charge on the requirements for such damages. However, a review of the trial transcript reveals that counsel did not except to the charge. Rather, the only discourse regarding punitive damages was as follows, as defense counsel was setting forth his exceptions:
Absent a proper and timely exception, the present objection to the jury charge on punitive damages is deemed to have been waived.
The defendant's final contention is that punitive damages are not available on a claim for negligent assault.
Connecticut courts have consistently stated that "[i]n order to award punitive or exemplary damages, evidence must reveal a reckless indifference to the rights of others or an intentional and wanton violation of those rights." Collens v. New Canaan Water Co., 155 Conn. 477, 489, 234 A.2d 825 (1967), quoted in Venturi v. Savitt, Inc., 191 Conn. 588, 592, 468 A.2d 933 (1983) and Berry v. Loiseau, 223 Conn. 786, 811, 614 A.2d 414 (1992). If the evidence discloses that a defendant was recklessly indifferent to the rights of a plaintiff, an actual intention to do harm is not necessary. Collens, 155 Conn. at 490, 234 A.2d 825.
Because an assault and battery may be committed in three ways — first, if committed willfully or voluntarily, and therefore intentionally; second, done under circumstances showing a reckless regard of the consequences; third, committed negligently — a complaint which only puts a defendant on notice that the plaintiff is allegedly seeking damages for a garden-variety "assault and battery", would be insufficient for the grant of punitive damages. Markey v. Santangelo, 195 Conn. 76, 78, 485 A.2d 1305 (1985).
Defendant's conduct falls into the second of the three Markey strictures, i.e., this assault and battery was clearly done under circumstances showing a reckless disregard of the consequences. This complaint is laden with such charges — a laceration to plaintiff's head requiring eighteen stitches, blurred vision and headaches, for example. By incorporating the earlier counts of the complaint, defendant is legally bound to have recognized that the assault...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crawford v. City of New London, Civil No. 3:11-cv-1371 (JBA)
...line with what the District of Connecticut was awarding lead counsel in excessive force cases at the time. See Rodriguez v. Abbatiello, 30 F. Supp. 2d 274, 278 (D. Conn. 1998) (awarding $250/hour to lead counsel and $150/hour to associate). 4. Local Rule 54 provides that "[f]ees for expert ......