Sherman v. Kasotakis
| Citation | 314 F.Supp.2d 843 |
| Decision Date | 19 April 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. C02-4047-MWB.,C02-4047-MWB. |
| Parties | Kenneth D. SHERMAN, Donald McNeal, Armondo Barker, and Tonyell McNeal, Plaintiffs, v. Nick KASOTAKIS, Individually and d/b/a the Horizons Family Restaurant, Defendant. |
| Court | United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa |
Shelley A. Horak, Horak & Associates, Sioux City, IA, for Plaintiffs.
Robert Tiefenthaler, Brian Blane Vakulskas, Vakulskas & Hoffmeyer, Jay Elliott Denne, Munger, Reinschmidt & Denne, Sioux City, IA, for Defendant.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND .............................848
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS ...............................................852
A. Motion For Partial Judgment As A s A Matter of Law ........852
1. Arguments of the of the Parties ........................852
2. Standards ..............................................853
a. Rule 50 .............................................853
b. Rule 51 .............................................858
3. Plain Error Review .....................................859
a. Employer liability ..................................860
b. Jury instructions ...................................863
B. Motion For Partial New Trial or Remittitur ................866
1. Standards ..............................................866
a. Rule 59 .............................................866
b. Constitutionally excessive verdict v. remittitur ....867
2. New trial ..............................................868
3. Remittitur .............................................870
4. Constitutionality ......................................870
a. Standard ............................................870
b. Analysis under the Gore guideposts ..................871
i. Reprehensibility ...............................872
ii. Proportionality ................................873
iii. Comparable civil or criminal penalties .........875
iv. Resolution .....................................876
C. Plaintiffs' Motion to Make Additional Findings ............876
D. Plaintiffs' Application For Attorney's Fees ...............880
1. Applicable Standards ...................................881
2. Reasonable hourly rate .................................881
3. Hours reasonably expended ..............................883
4. Recoverable costs and expenses .........................885
III. CONCLUSION ..................................................885
After a two-day jury trial in this racial discrimination in a public accommodation case at a local Sioux City restaurant, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the four individual plaintiffs. The jury awarded each plaintiff $1.00 in nominal damages and $12,500.00 in punitive damages. The jury apparently determined that the plaintiffs did not suffer any emotional distress damages resulting from the defendant's unlawful conduct. A number of post-trial motions followed the jury's disposition of this case. The defendant takes issue with the amount of punitive damages awarded, in relationship to the amount of compensatory damages awarded, and seeks judgment as a matter of law and/or a new trial on the issue of punitive damages, or alternatively that the court order a remittitur of the punitive damages. Predictably, the plaintiffs resist the defendant's motion on all grounds. Also at issue are the plaintiffs' application for attorney's fees and costs and the plaintiffs' motion requesting the court amend the judgment and order injunctive relief. Both of plaintiffs' motions are resisted by the defendant.
This case stems from a single incident occurring at The Horizons Family Restaurant on June 23, 2001. In the early morning of June 23, 2001, Kenneth Sherman, Donald McNeal, Armondo Barker and Tonyell McNeal2 ("plaintiffs"), planned to leave from the Club 7123 for The Horizons Family Restaurant. The outing was spurred by the impending wedding of plaintiff Kenneth Sherman later that afternoon — the four intended the outing to The Horizons Family Restaurant to eat a meal to constitute Sherman's bachelor party. The bachelor party outing to The Horizons Family Restaurant did not commence until the wee morning hours of June 23, 2001, for the reason that three of the plaintiffs — Donald McNeal, Armondo Barker and Tonyell McNeal — were working at Club 712 that night4 and had to close the club down before they could leave. Kenneth Sherman arrived at the club around 10:00 p.m. on the evening of June 22, 2001, and hung out there until the other three plaintiffs were done with their work duties. At approximately 3:30 a.m. the plaintiffs5 left the 712 Club and went to The Horizons Family Restaurant for a meal.
Upon entering The Horizons Family Restaurant the plaintiffs were greeted by a host. The plaintiffs formed a single file line behind the host, and the host began to lead the plaintiffs over to a particular section of the restaurant to be seated. As the group, following the hostess, approached the section the waiter for that section stood up in front of the hostess, spread his arms out so as to block passage into the section, and told the hostess: "I told you about bringing all these niggers over here." The host stepped back and asked the waiter to repeat himself, to which the waiter repeated what he had just said. The plaintiffs' immediate responses to these comments were varied; Donald McNeal and Tonyell McNeal turned away and stood off to the side, while Kenneth Sherman and Ricky Warren held Armondo Barker back from attempting to physically harm the waiter. The waiter then made a comment to the effect of "that is what's wrong with you people." Those present to witness the incident included the host, the waiter, the shift supervisor and an off-duty police officer. Sioux City Police Officer David Mentzer, who was off-duty at the time but was contracted by The Horizons Family Restaurant to provide private security at the restaurant on the overnight shift on that night, testified that he overheard the waiter say the following to the plaintiffs: "we don't serve your kind here." The host proceeded to seat the plaintiffs in another section of the restaurant. Tonyell McNeal, visibly upset by what had transpired, left almost immediately after the group was seated. The plaintiffs then witnessed the host go back over and approach the waiter about his actions — the two apparently got in a mild shoving match over the issue. The plaintiffs testified that the host was upset, and questioned why the waiter called the plaintiffs `niggers.' Officer Mentzer broke up the scuffle.6 Officer Mentzer then approached the plaintiffs at where they were seated and asked if they wanted to make a statement — all of the plaintiffs declined at the time.
Apparently, after the plaintiffs were seated and approached by Officer Mentzer, word of the incident had spread to other restaurant employees working that night. The plaintiff Donald McNeal testified that the host's wife, who was working in the kitchen, came out from the kitchen and started yelling and screaming at the supervisor — she was apparently upset because this particular waiter had previously made racially derogatory comments to her, her husband, and others working in the kitchen and she was wondering how long the supervisor would just sit by and let it continue to happen. Donald McNeal also testified that a cook, who was also African American, came out of the kitchen and started speaking to the supervisor about how everyone in the restaurant knew that the waiter was inclined to make racially derogatory remarks, and wondered if the fact that the waiter had now used them towards customers would spur some response on the part of management. The supervisor told both the cook and the host's wife to go back to what they were doing.
The supervisor then approached the plaintiffs' table and explained that the waiter's conduct was unacceptable, that the waiter would be fired and that he would take care of it that instant. The supervisor then gave the plaintiffs each a menu and informed them that their meals would be free. However, despite the promises of the supervisor, the plaintiffs never saw the supervisor approach the offending waiter — in fact, the offending waiter continued to work in his section for the duration of the time that the plaintiffs remained at The Horizons Family Restaurant that morning.
Each of the plaintiffs testified that at the time they arrived at the restaurant both sections of the restaurant, the section manned by the offending waiter and the section they were actually seated in, had seating available to accommodate their party of five. After the plaintiffs were seated they noticed a segregated seating arrangement being implemented. Specifically, the plaintiffs noted that Mexican customers and an interracial couple were all seated in the same area as the plaintiffs, while four Caucasian patrons were seated in the section worked by the offending waiter. When these other patrons were seated there, again, was ample room in either section to seat them.
Each of the plaintiffs ordered something, though not many of them ate any substantial amount. The remaining group — Donald McNeal, Armondo Barker and Kenneth Sherman — stayed at the restaurant for approximately 30-45 minutes before leaving. After leaving the restaurant, Donald McNeal, Armondo Barker and Kenneth Sherman went...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tanner v. Ebbole
...damages are nominal, “a much higher ratio [of punitive damages to compensatory damages] can be contemplated”); Sherman v. Kasotakis, 314 F.Supp.2d 843, 871 (N.D.Iowa 2004) (stating that “the ... prudent path [when an award of compensatory damages is nominal] is to apply the Gore guideposts,......
-
Wallace v. Poulos, Civil Action No. DKC 08–0251.
...award and enter judgment directly rests in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50. E.g., Johansen, 170 F.3d at 1331;Sherman v. Kasotakis, 314 F.Supp.2d 843, 868 (N.D.Iowa 2004) (quoting Johansen ). Those courts, however, do not specify whether Rule 50(a) or Rule 50(b) applies. As explained with......
-
Holt v. Pennsylvania
...third guidepost, we note that Section 1983 does not provide a statutory reference point for damage awards. See Sherman v. Kasotakis, 314 F. Supp. 2d 843, 876 (N.D. Iowa 2004) (due to the lack of a comparable civil penalties, "some courts have found the third guidepost of limited utility in ......
-
Kauffman v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc.
...to a Section 1981 case). See also Zhang v. American Gem Seafoods, Inc., 339 F.3d 1020, 1044-45 (9th Cir.2003); Sherman v. Kasotakis, 314 F.Supp.2d 843, 875-76 (N.D.Iowa 2004); Florez v. Delbovo, 939 F.Supp. 1341, 1348 Thus, while it is not appropriate to institute a de facto judicial cap on......
-
Commonly Used Experts
...been difficult to determine. It is appropriate, therefore, to reiterate the rejection of a categorical approach. Sherman v. Kasotakis, 314 F. Supp. 2d 843, 871-872 (N.D. Iowa 2004), was a racial discrimination in a public accommodation case in which the court denied the defendant’s motion f......
-
Table of Cases
...2d (S.D.N.Y. 1999), §402.1 Shandralina G. v. Homonchuk, 147 Cal. App. 4th 395, 54 Cal. Rptr. 3d 207 (2007), §424 Sherman v. Kasotakis, 314 F. Supp. 2d 843, 871-872 (N.D. Iowa 2004), §551.1.10 Sherrod v. Berry , 827 F. 2d 195 (7th Cir. 1987), §551.2.4 Shipp v. General Motors Corp. , 750 F.2d......
-
Commonly Used Experts
...been difficult to determine. It is appropriate, therefore, to reiterate the rejection of a categorical approach. Sherman v. Kasotakis, 314 F. Supp. 2d 843, 871-872 (N.D. Iowa 2004), was a racial discrimination in a public accommodation case in which the court denied the defendant’s motion f......
-
Table of Cases
...2d (S.D.N.Y. 1999), §402.1 Shandralina G. v. Homonchuk, 147 Cal. App. 4th 395, 54 Cal. Rptr. 3d 207 (2007), §424 Sherman v. Kasotakis, 314 F. Supp. 2d 843, 871-872 (N.D. Iowa 2004), §551.1.10 Sherrod v. Berry , 827 F. 2d 195 (7th Cir. 1987), §551.2.4 Shipp v. General Motors Corp. , 750 F.2d......