Enyart v. County of San Bernardino

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 23, 2025
• Docket: 24-6083
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 23 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FRANCES ENYART, individually, and as No. 24-6083 Successor in Interest to William Enyart; D.C. No. GREGORY ENYART, as an individual; A. 5:23-cv-00540-RGK-SHK E., a minor by and through her guardian ad litem, Amanda Kelley, MEMORANDUM* Plaintiffs - Appellees,

v.

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO,

Defendant - Appellant,

and

AARON CONLEY, Deputy C. UMPHLETT, ROD SKAGGS, Deputy SNOW, DOES 1-10, inclusive,

Defendants.

FRANCES ENYART; GREGORY No. 25-289 ENYART; A. E., D.C. No. Plaintiffs - Appellees, 5:23-cv-00540-RGK-SHK

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. AARON CONLEY, C. UMPHLETT, ROD SKAGGS, SNOW, DOES 1-10,

Defendants,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted December 4, 2025 Pasadena, California

Before: BEA, BADE, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Frances Enyart, Gregory Enyart, and A.E., a minor, sued San Bernardino

County and several county employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after William

Enyart’s death while in county custody due to alcohol withdrawal. A jury returned

a verdict in favor of the Plaintiffs. The County appeals the district court’s denial of

its Rule 50 motions for judgment as a matter of law, the judgment, and the fee award.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Rule 50(a)’s text requires that a motion for judgment as a matter of law be

first brought “before the case is submitted to the jury.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(2)

(emphasis added). This did not occur here. The County first moved for judgment

as a matter of law after the case had been submitted to the jury.

2 24-6083 The County asks us to excuse its failure, pointing to the district court’s earlier

statement “that both sides can reserve that request to make a motion at the end of the

case” and its setting of a briefing schedule for Rule 50 motions.While the district

court’s statement may have been somewhat confusing, the County still had a duty to

move for judgment as a matter of law before the case was submitted to the jury under

Rule 50’s text and our caselaw. Tortu v. L.V. Metro. Police Dep’t, 556 F.3d 1075,

1082 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[W]e strictly construe the procedural requirement of filing a

Rule 50(a) motion before filing a Rule 50(b) motion.”); Janes v. Wal-Mart Stores

Inc., 279 F.3d 883, 887 (9th Cir. 2002).1 Neither the district court nor a party can

countermand the clear text of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Tortu, 556

F.3d at 1082–83; Fed. R. Civ. P. 83(b); Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 40, 45–46 (2016).

This strict requirement advances Rule 50’s underlying policy. “The earlier

motion [under Rule 50(a)] informs the opposing party of the challenge to the

sufficiency of the evidence and affords a clear opportunity to provide additional

evidence that may be available.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) advisory committee’s note to

2006 amendment. In other words, the purpose of the requirement is to discourage

1 Although we have previously explained that, in limited circumstances, “Rule 50(b) ‘may be satisfied by an ambiguous or inartfully made motion’ under Rule 50(a),” EEOC v. Go Daddy Software, Inc., 581 F.3d 951, 961 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Reeves v. Teuscher, 881 F.2d 1495, 1498 (9th Cir. 1989)), it is axiomatic that “passive conduct does not qualify” as a “motion” of any sort. United States v. Finazzo, 841 F.3d 816, 818 (9th Cir. 2016).

3 24-6083 sandbagging—remaining silent about the deficiency until it is too late to correct

except by way of a new trial. See Zhang v. Am. Gem Seafoods, Inc., 339 F.3d 1020,

1032–34, 1037 (9th Cir. 2003); Lifshitz v. Walter Drake & Sons, Inc., 806 F.2d 1426,

1429 (9th Cir. 1986). Once the opportunity to cure passes, so too does the

opportunity to object. Cf. Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 487 n.6 (2008)

(“[T]he procedures for preserving or waiving issues are part of the machinery by

which courts narrow what remains to be decided.”). “[N]ot having raised the issue

before the matter was submitted to the jury, the [County] cannot complain of a defect

in proof for the resulting verdict.” Zhang, 339 F.3d at 1034.

Because the County forfeited its Rule 50 motion, we do not address the merits

of the motion.

AFFIRMED.

4 24-6083