Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
399 P Liquidated Damages Request

399 P Liquidated Damages Request

Ratings: (0)|Views: 102|Likes:
Published by Eugene D. Lee

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: Eugene D. Lee on Aug 13, 2009
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/09/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 
USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW DLBPLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728L
AW
O
FFICE OF
E
UGENE
L
EE
 Eugene D. Lee (SB#: 236812)555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100Los Angeles, CA 90013Phone: (213) 992-3299Fax: (213) 596-0487email: elee@LOEL.comJoan Herrington, SB# 178988B
AY
A
REA
E
MPLOYMENT
L
AW
O
FFICE
 5032 Woodminster LaneOakland, CA 94602-2614Telephone: (510) 530-4078Facsimile: (510) 530-4725Email: jh@baelo.comOf Counsel to LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEEAttorneys for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.,
Plaintiff,v.
COUNTY OF KERN,
Defendants.Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW DLB
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ADDITIONALFINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONSOF LAW
[F.R.C.P. 52(b)]Trial: May 14, 2009Complaint Filed: January 6, 2007
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-DLB Document 399 Filed 08/10/2009 Page 1 of 11
 
 
USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW DLBPLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW i
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Table of Contents
I.
 
Background .......................................................................................................................................... 1
 
II.
 
Proposed Statements of Fact ............................................................................................................ 1
 
III.
 
Proposed Conclusions of Law ......................................................................................................... 2
 
IV.
 
Legal Brief ....................................................................................................................................... 3
 
A.
 
There Is a Strong Presumption in Favor of Liquidated Damages under FMLA .......................... 3
 
B.
 
Liquidated Damages Are Not a Windfall ..................................................................................... 4
 
C.
 
Defendant Failed to Even Assert, Let Alone Prove, a Good Faith Defense to LiquidatedDamages .................................................................................................................................................. 4
 
D.
 
The Court is Bound by the Jury’s Finding of “Willfulness” ........................................................ 6
 
E.
 
Plaintiff is Entitled to Prejudgment Interest as a Matter of Law .................................................. 7
 
V.
 
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 8
 
Table of Authorities
Cases
 
 Arban v. West Publ’g Corp.
345 F.3d 390 (6th Cir. Mich. 2003) .......................................................... 4, 6
 Bachelder v. Am. W. Airlines, Inc.
, 259 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. Ariz. 2001) ............................................... 3, 5
Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Walbrook Ins. Co
., 41 F.3d 764 (1st Cir. 1994) ........................................ 7
Criswell v. Western Airlines, Inc.
, 709 F.2d 544 (9th Cir. 1983) ............................................................... 7
Currie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd 
. (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1109 ................................................................ 8
 Davis & Cox v. Summa Corp.
, 751 F.2d 1507 (9th Cir. 1985) ................................................................... 7
 Dominic v. Consolidated Edison Co.
, 822 F.2d 1249 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1987) ................................................ 5
 Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins
(1938) 304 US 64 ...................................................................................... 7
 Hopi Tribe v. Navajo Tribe
, 46 F.3d 908 (9th Cir. 1995) ........................................................................... 7
 In re Oil Spill by the Amoco Cadiz
, 954 F.2d 1279 (7th Cir. 1992) ........................................................... 8
 Jarrett v. ERC Properties, Inc.
, 211 F.3d 1078 (8
th
Cir. Ark. 2000) .......................................................... 4
 Jordan v. United States Postal Serv
., 379 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. Okla. 2004) ............................................. 4
Koehler v. Pulvers
, 614 F. Supp. 829 (S.D. Cal. 1985) .............................................................................. 7
 Mallis v. Bankers Trust Co.
, 717 F.2d 683 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1983) ................................................................ 7
 Marfia v. T.C. Ziraat Bankasi
, 147 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 1998) ........................................................................ 7
 Morris v. VCW, Inc.
(W.D. Mo 1996) 1996 WL 40544 ............................................................................. 4
 Nero v. Industrial Molding Corp.
(1999, 5
th
Cir. Tex) 167 F.3d 921 ......................................................... 4
 Reich v. Southern New England Telecomm. Corp.
(2nd Cir. 1997) 121 F3d 58 ........................................ 3
 Rose v. Hearst Magazines Div.
, 814 F.2d 491 (7th Cir. 1987) ................................................................... 6
Smith v.
 
 Diffee Ford-Lincoln-Mercury, Inc.,
298 F.3d 955 (10
th
Cir. Okla. 2002) .................................... 6
Webco Indus., Inc. v. Thermatool Corp
., 278 F.3d 1120 (10th Cir. 2002) ................................................. 8
Statutes
 
28 USC § 1652 ............................................................................................................................................ 729 USC § 2617 ............................................................................................................................................ 329 USCS §§ 201 et seq. .............................................................................................................................. 442 U.S.C.S. § 1983...................................................................................................................................... 4California Civil Code § 3287(a) ................................................................................................................. 8Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 52(b) .............................................................................................................................. 1
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-DLB Document 399 Filed 08/10/2009 Page 2 of 11
 
 
USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW DLBPLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728Plaintiff hereby moves this Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 52(b) for additional findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding Plaintiff’s request for (i) liquidated damages under the Family andMedical Leave Act (“FMLA”) and (ii) prejudgment interest. Plaintiff had made such request in theprayer of his Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 241). Plaintiff’s request was subsequently incorporatedinto the Pre-Trial Order (Doc. 328, 34:6-11, 41:14-18). The question of fact of “willfulness” underFMLA, forming the basis for liquidated damages, was submitted to the jury and jury verdicts inPlaintiff’s favor were returned and subsequently entered by the Court.Given that all liability issues have now been resolved in Plaintiff’s favor and final judgment shallbe entered presently, Plaintiff hereby respectfully moves the Court for an order awarding liquidateddamages and prejudgment interest to Plaintiff for inclusion in the final judgment.
I.
 
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff tried his claims for retaliation in violation of FMLA to a jury and prevailed on those,and all other, causes of actions. On June 8, 2009, the Court entered jury verdicts in favor of Plaintiff onall of Plaintiff’s claims. Among other things, the jury found: (1) Defendant County of Kern (“County”)retaliated against Plaintiff for engaging in certain activities in violation of the FMLA; (2) suchretaliation was willful, (3) County retaliated against Plaintiff for taking medical leave under the FMLA;and (4) such retaliation was willful. The jury also found against the County on its defense that Plaintiff’semployment contract was not renewed by reason of his conduct and alleged violation of the employer’srules and contract requirements and/or that Plaintiff’s behavior was the cause of the nonrenewal of hiscontract.In a subsequent bench trial, the Court found in Plaintiff’s favor on his due process violationclaim, but ruled that Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief based on his FMLA/CFRA interferenceclaims lacked standing and were moot.
II.
 
PROPOSED STATEMENTS OF FACT
1.
 
Defendant County was at all relevant times aware of the prohibitions against retaliationcontained in FMLA. This was established at trial by the testimony of numerous key officers of KernMedical Center, as well as by deposition testimony excerpts that were read into the record.2.
 
Per the jury’s verdicts, Defendant County retaliated against Plaintiff for engaging in
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-DLB Document 399 Filed 08/10/2009 Page 3 of 11

Activity (3)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
sfreiga liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->