Fernando Corona v. Matthew Hunter

Corona v. Hunter · United States District Court for the District of Arizona · February 19, 2026 · No. CV-23-01251-PHX-JAT

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Arizona denied Defendant Matthew Hunter’s oral motions for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) in Fernando Corona’s action alleging battery, negligence, and excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court held that sufficient evidence supported causation, intent, and the alleged use of unreasonable force, and that credibility determinations were reserved for the jury.

Holdings

  1. When the court takes a Rule 50(a) motion under advisement and submits the case to the jury, it may later decide the legal questions raised by the motion under Rule 50(b), even if the defendant merely re-raises the motion at the close of the defendant's case rather than formally renewing it after the verdict.
  2. The evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that Defendant caused Plaintiff's injury; judgment as a matter of law was therefore denied on causation.
  3. Defendant was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the battery claim because his argument conceded that evidence existed to support the element of intent, and credibility questions were for the jury.
  4. Defendant was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the excessive-force claim because an eyewitness's testimony that Defendant used force against Plaintiff provided a sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to find that the force was greater than necessary under the circumstances.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the negligence and § 1983 claims for lack of evidence of causation.
  2. Whether Defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the battery claim for lack of evidence of intent.
  3. Whether Defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the § 1983 excessive-force claim for lack of evidence that Defendant used unreasonable or excessive force.
  4. Whether the court could decide the pending Rule 50(a) motions after taking them under advisement, submitting the case to the jury, and receiving the jury's verdict.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (8)

  • Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250–52 (1986)(followed)
  • Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000)(followed)
  • Craten v. Foster Poultry Farms Inc., No. CV-15-02587-PHX-DLR, 2018 WL 4492287 (D. Ariz. Sept. 19, 2018)(followed)
  • Jarrett v. Ryan, No. CV-17-01589-PHX-JAT (CDB), 2019 WL 2076045, at *7 (D. Ariz. May 10, 2019)(followed)
  • Seals v. Mitchell, No. CV-04-3764-NJV, 2011 WL 1399245, at *12 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2011)(followed)
  • Sampson v. Surgery Ctr. of Peoria, 491 P.3d 1115, 1119 (Ariz. 2021)(distinguished)
  • Petolicchio v. Santa Cruz County Fair & Rodeo Ass’n, Inc., 866 P.2d 1342, 1348 (Ariz. 1994)(followed)
  • Robertson v. Sixpence Inns of Am., Inc., 789 P.2d 1040, 1047 (Ariz. 1990)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…