[00:00:14] Speaker 01: I'd like to have reserved ten minutes for rebuttal. [00:00:20] Speaker 01: Sorry, two minutes for rebuttal. [00:00:22] Speaker 01: That makes more sense. [00:00:24] Speaker 01: The district court applied the incorrect standard in granting this motion for judgment as a matter of law in the jury trial. [00:00:31] Speaker 01: When deciding a motion for judgment as a matter of law, the court must do so under an analysis which protects the non-moving party. [00:01:02] Speaker 01: as a matter of law, these are best suited for a jury to make who's sitting in panel for the case. [00:01:08] Speaker 01: Mr. Arana requested a jury trial at the outset of this case, and he meticulously picked his jury for his particular case. [00:01:17] Speaker 01: There's no dispute that the district court used credibility findings as a basis for its decision in granting Ms. [00:01:25] Speaker 01: Melton's judgment as a matter of law. [00:01:27] Speaker 01: That's in the record at ER 199. [00:01:36] Speaker 01: also in this court's decision in the Velasquez v. City of Long Beach. [00:01:40] Speaker 01: Secondly, judgment as a matter of law is precluded where conflicting material evidence is presented before the jury. [00:01:48] Speaker 01: The standard is that the evidence of the nonmoving party is to be believed, and here that was not the case. [00:01:55] Speaker 01: So what was the [00:02:03] Speaker 01: in that building and all you have is just a [00:02:52] Speaker 01: that under the rule 50 standard had to have been believed by the [00:03:35] Speaker 01: Well, I agree with Your Honor that the jury could have decided a number of ways. [00:03:40] Speaker 01: As His Honor certainly pointed out, there was evidence that was on the other side that a reasonable jury could have found in Ms. [00:03:49] Speaker 01: Mellon's favor. [00:03:50] Speaker 01: However, likewise, it could have found in favor of Mr. Arellano had his evidence been believed and had he had the opportunity [00:04:14] Speaker 01: disagree. [00:04:19] Speaker 01: I have a question. [00:04:19] Speaker 01: It seems like during the course of, I forget, during the trial or deposition, the nurse in question was discovered. [00:04:26] Speaker 01: There was someone that signed the book saying that she was the one that was administering the drugs that day. [00:04:33] Speaker 01: Why not amend the complaint to sue her? [00:04:36] Speaker 01: Well, Your Honor, Mr. Ariado testified that it was indeed Ms. [00:04:42] Speaker 01: Melton. [00:04:42] Speaker 01: He identified her specifically the [00:04:51] Speaker 01: and he specifically named her as a party. [00:04:55] Speaker 01: It's not impossible that it was her because, frankly, the record shows that the nurses, and this is some of the inferences that should be granted in Mr. Ariano's favor, that the [00:05:42] Speaker 01: here that would have changed the outcome. [00:07:42] Speaker 01: David is not enough to defeat summary judgment. [00:09:06] Speaker 00: Melton. [00:09:08] Speaker 00: Here the district court granted judgment as a matter of law under Rule 58 based on all of the evidence. [00:09:14] Speaker 00: That evidence included Ms. [00:09:15] Speaker 00: Melton's attendance and work history records, Mr. Arellano's medication administration records, and the testimony of the parties as well as the third party testimony that only corroborated Ms. [00:09:27] Speaker 00: Melton's testimony. [00:09:29] Speaker 00: The court did not limit its ruling [00:09:43] Speaker 00: after reciting the applicable rule and ruling on all the evidence, did it mention the phrase credibility? [00:09:50] Speaker 00: The applicable rule 58 standard states that once a party has been fully heard and the court finds a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for that party, then it may resolve the issue against that non-moving party. [00:10:06] Speaker 00: It's important to note that the district [00:10:23] Speaker 00: or the credibility of the witnesses? [00:10:26] Speaker 00: Well, I'm not going to say that, you know, the case law that says, you know, stay away from credibility doesn't apply. [00:10:33] Speaker 00: But what I think is important to note here is that before ever getting to that point, it went through all of the evidence and stated that that's what its decision was based upon. [00:11:01] Speaker 00: that corroborated Ms. [00:11:04] Speaker 00: Melton's account, and counsel referenced his position on a distinction between the MSJ and Rule 50 analysis, but I would note that the Supreme Court holds that the inquiry is the same. [00:11:32] Speaker 01: testimony. [00:11:33] Speaker 01: So that's just kind of saying, I believe the defendant over the plaintiff. [00:11:38] Speaker 00: Well, I think when you're, thank you for that, Your Honor. [00:11:41] Speaker 00: When you're referencing credibility, you're examining whether or not the person is to be believed, and that can be in isolation, just viewing their testimony here. [00:11:50] Speaker 00: They were seeing what third parties had to say about work history and attendance records, and another person who testified that they were, in fact, the one who filled out the medication administration record. [00:12:04] Speaker 00: dosage of the medication. [00:12:06] Speaker 00: I would put that in a different category than just viewing the person's testimony and saying, do I believe this? [00:12:11] Speaker 00: In light of the standard in the Ninth Circuit that states that self-serving or uncorroborated affidavits or declarations that are contrary to the facts as shown in the record, for example, the third-party witnesses or the documentary evidence, [00:12:45] Speaker 00: 26 to 27 of our answering brief. [00:12:53] Speaker 00: And I would also like to respond to one thing referenced by counsel is that he referenced that there were [00:13:18] Speaker 00: nurses of a different licensure, licensed vocational nurses as opposed to a psych tech, which is what Ms. [00:13:25] Speaker 00: Melton was as of that date. [00:13:37] Speaker 01: Is there any other questions? [00:13:38] Speaker 01: Feel free to submit unless you want to say anything else. [00:13:42] Speaker 01: One moment. [00:13:46] Speaker 00: I would also like to respond one last [00:13:50] Speaker 00: conflicting evidence here today. [00:13:53] Speaker 00: Council referenced the testimony of the client, but I think that's addressed under the separate analysis of whether or not testimony is corroborated. [00:14:02] Speaker 00: But the reference to a missing signature or clicking reference as to uncertain attendance records, it's important to note under the applicable standard that [00:14:19] Speaker 00: conjecture as to what they believe could create a triable issue and here there was no evidence that a missing signature in any way suggested several affirmative inferences that somebody was in fact at another location at a different time at a place exclusively staffed by people of different licensures and the [00:16:45] Speaker 01: their favor. [00:16:46] Speaker 01: We believe that Mr Ariana presented that and that his opportunity to present the case for the jury was taken away due to the court's error. [00:16:53] Speaker 01: Thank you. [00:16:54] Speaker 01: Thank you, counsel. [00:16:55] Speaker 01: This case is submitted and thank you for handing over this case pro bono and well argued on both sides. [00:17:00] Speaker 01: Thank you very much.