United States District Court, S.D. New York
Effat S. Emamian, Plaintiff,
Rockefeller University, Defendant.
OPINION & ORDER
DEBORAH A. BATTS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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.
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.
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).
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).
“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).
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 ...