Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Emamian v. Rockefeller University

United States District Court, S.D. New York

February 21, 2018

Effat S. Emamian, Plaintiff,
v.
Rockefeller University, Defendant.

          OPINION & ORDER

          DEBORAH A. BATTS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Defendant has moved for Judgment as a Matter of Law pursuant to Rule 50(a) on Plaintiff's claims for negligence, promissory estoppel, intentional discrimination based on race, religion, national origin and gender, and retaliation. For the reasons stated below, Defendant's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law is GRANTED with regard to Plaintiff's negligence claim, but DENIED on Plaintiff's claims for promissory estoppel, intentional discrimination, and retaliation.

         I. Rule 50(a) JMOL Standard Rule 50(a) states:

(1) In General. If a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue, the court may:
(A) resolve the issue against the party; and
(B) grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against the party on a claim or defense that, under the controlling law, can be maintained or defeated only with a favorable finding on that issue.
(2) Motion. A motion for judgment as a matter of law may be made at any time before the case is submitted to the jury. The motion must specify the judgment sought and the law and facts that entitle the movant to the judgment.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 50.

         In considering a motion for judgment as a matter of law, the district court “must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and it may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence. . . . [A]lthough the court should review the record as a whole, it must disregard all evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury is not required to believe.” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133, 150-51 (2000).

         “Thus, a court may grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law only if it can conclude that, with credibility assessments made against the moving party and all inferences drawn against the moving party, a reasonable juror would have been compelled to accept the view of the moving party.” Zellner v. Summerlin, 494 F.3d 344, 370-71 (2d Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).

         The “standard for granting summary judgment mirrors the standard for judgment as a matter of law, such that the inquiry under each is the same.” Reeves, 530 U.S. at 150 (internal quotation marks omitted).

         II. Analysis

         A. Negligence

         Under New York law, to “establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) a breach thereof, and (3) injury proximately resulting therefrom.” Solomon v. City of New York,66 N.Y.2d 1026, 1027 (N.Y. 1985). Plaintiff argues that Defendant acted negligently by promising to send Dr. Emamian her mouse lines, and then failing to do so. Defendant argues that it owed no duty to send Dr. Emamian the mouse lines because the University owned the mouse lines in question in the first place. Plaintiff does not dispute the fact that the University owned the mouse lines (at least ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.