Filed: Mar. 03, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2016
Summary: ORDER ELIZABETH A. KOVACHEVICH , District Judge . This cause is before the Court on: Dkt. 108 Motion for Judgment NOV The Court conducted a jury trial on Plaintiffs' ADA claims and on Defendant's Counterclaim on April 6, 8 and 9, 2015. The jury verdict was advisory only as to Plaintiffs' ADA claim. At trial, at the close of the Plaintiffs' case, Defendant EDZ, Inc. moved for judgment NOV. Defendant argued that evidence was not sufficient for the Court to enter an injunction, the only rel
Summary: ORDER ELIZABETH A. KOVACHEVICH , District Judge . This cause is before the Court on: Dkt. 108 Motion for Judgment NOV The Court conducted a jury trial on Plaintiffs' ADA claims and on Defendant's Counterclaim on April 6, 8 and 9, 2015. The jury verdict was advisory only as to Plaintiffs' ADA claim. At trial, at the close of the Plaintiffs' case, Defendant EDZ, Inc. moved for judgment NOV. Defendant argued that evidence was not sufficient for the Court to enter an injunction, the only reli..
More
ORDER
ELIZABETH A. KOVACHEVICH, District Judge.
This cause is before the Court on:
Dkt. 108 Motion for Judgment NOV
The Court conducted a jury trial on Plaintiffs' ADA claims and on Defendant's Counterclaim on April 6, 8 and 9, 2015. The jury verdict was advisory only as to Plaintiffs' ADA claim.
At trial, at the close of the Plaintiffs' case, Defendant EDZ, Inc. moved for judgment NOV. Defendant argued that evidence was not sufficient for the Court to enter an injunction, the only relief available to Plaintiffs, in that Plaintiffs did not establish a real threat of future harm. Defendant challenged Plaintiff Kennedy's standing. Defendant argued that Plaintiffs did not establish that the modifications sought were readily achievable.
In response, Plaintiffs argued that Defendant has not shown that this case is moot, in that Defendant did nothing to comply with the ADA as to Defendant's other store until Defendant was sued, Defendant has not acknowledged liability, and Plaintiffs have provided sufficient evidence to show that the modifications sought were readily achievable.
In ruling on a defendant's Rule 50 (a) motion made at the close of the plaintiff's case, the Court considers all the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and grants the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences. Judgment as a matter of law for the defendant is proper when there is insufficient evidence to prove an element of the claim, which means that no jury reasonably could have reached a verdict for the plaintiff on that claim. See Collado v. UPS, 419 F.3d 1143, 1149 (11th Cir. 2005).
The Court deferred ruling on Defendant's Motion for Judgment NOV, and Plaintiffs' ADA claim was submitted to the jury, which found that Defendant did not discriminate against Plaintiffs on November 20, 2013.
The Court has entered its memorandum opinion addressing Plaintiffs' ADA claim.
After consideration, the Court denies Defendant EDZ, Inc.'s Motion for Judgment NOV. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Defendant EDZ, Inc.'s Motion for Judgment NOV (Dkt. 108) is denied.
DONE and ORDERED.
