Free Response in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona


File Size: 37.8 kB
Pages: 2
Date: November 3, 2005
File Format: PDF
State: Arizona
Category: District Court of Arizona
Author: unknown
Word Count: 432 Words, 2,606 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/azd/35368/150.pdf

Download Response in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Arizona ( 37.8 kB)


Preview Response in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Arizona
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

RICHARD J. HARRIS LAW OFFICES, P.C .
4445 E. HOLMES A VE., SUITE 106 MESA, AZ 85206 (480) 854-3500 [email protected]

Richard J. Harris ­ #013859 Attorney for Plaintiff IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Matthew Shaffer, Plaintiff, v. State of Arizona Citizens Clean Election Commission; Colleen Connor et al. Defendants. Plaintiff Matt Shaffer hereby responds in opposition to Defendants' MOTION TO
CORRECT THE JUDGMENT.

CV03 2344 PHX FJM RESPONSE TO MOTION TO CORRECT THE JUDGMENT

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the response to motion for

JMOL and Remittitur or New Trial filed contemporaneously herewith. The Judgment is correct as written for two reasons: First the damages awarded for Defamation and for Section 1983 are distinct. The on the defamation claim the jury was instructed to award Shaffer his economic damages, reputation damages and emotional distress damages. In order to avoid duplication of damages, Shaffer proffered an instruction which the court gave to the jury to award only those emotional distress damages resulting from the failure to give Shaffer a name clearing hearing. These damages do not overlap. Secondly, may be limited to recover only the greatest amount awarded by the jury, but Shaffer is entitled to collect the full amount from either defendant and on either claim. Because the court's decision on the pending post-trial motions may affect the analysis on this issue, Plaintiff urges the court to rule on the post-trial motions for JMOL, Remittitur and New Trial before addressing this issue. Only after the ruling on that matter should Case 2:03-cv-02344-FJM Document 150 Filed 11/03/2005 Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Plaintiff be required to brief this motion. Alternatively, Plaintiff re-urges the arguments in his responses to those motions as is set forth herein. SUBMITTED this November 3, 2005 R ICHARD J. H ARRIS L AW O FFICES, P.C. By: s/Richard J. Harris Richard J. Harris 4445 E. Holmes Ave., Suite 106 Mesa, AZ 85206 Copy of the foregoing electronically transmitted via the U.S. District Court's Electronic Case Filing System this November 3, 2005 and to: Jay Zweig Melissa Berrens Gallagher & Kennedy 2575 E. Camelback Rd. Phoenix, AZ 85016-9225 Attorney for Defendants s/Richard J. Harris

14
Shaffer\pleadings\Response to Motion for JMOL Remittitur or New Trial 001

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
R ICHARD J. H ARRIS L A W O FFICES , P .C .

2 Case 2:03-cv-02344-FJM Document 150 Filed 11/03/2005 Page 2 of 2