PER CURIAM
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, BARKETT and FAY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-Appellant Dr. Maryla Madura ("Madura") appeals: (1) the grant of summary judgment as to Defendants-Appellees Antonio Marciente ("Marciente") and Tony Sanchez ("Sanchez") on Madura's § 1983 false arrest and excessive force claims and to Defendant-Appellee City of North Miami Beach ("the City") on Madura's state law false arrest / false imprisonment claim; (2) the directed verdict for Sanchez on Madura's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim; (3) the grant of the City's post-verdict motion for a judgment as a matter of law on Madura's assault and battery claims; and (4) the exclusion and allowance of certain evidence and testimony at trial.
I.
On June 25, 2002, around 7:30 p.m. and before dark, several of the City's police officers including Sanchez and Marciante confronted and arrested a purchaser of 100 MDMA ecstasy pills, Lazaro Martinez ("Martinez"), at a Taco Bell in North Miami Beach. At the same time that Martinez was confronted, Madura, a white female, stopped at the Taco Bell for dinner. In the parking lot, Madura saw several unidentified, armed police officers dressed in black "taking down" Martinez. Madura mistook the officers for terrorists or gang members, was alarmed, and left the parking lot. The police, at Sanchez's direction, followed Madura, believing her to be connected to Martinez. They stopped Madura's car by physically blocking her passage with an SUV, arrested her, searched her car, and later released her after realizing that she had no connection to Martinez. According to Madura, Sanchez also threatened her not to report their mistake. Madura suffered physical and emotional injuries and received medical treatment as well as ongoing psychological treatment.
The more specific details about the events differ substantially, however, according to the parties' testimony. Attached to this opinion as "Appendix I" is a side-by-side comparison of their accounts.
II.
The issues presented on appeal are:
1. Whether the district court erroneously granted summary judgment to:
(a) Marciante and Sanchez on Madura's § 1983 false arrest claims;
(b) the City on Madura's state law false arrest / false imprisonment claim;
(c) Sanchez on Madura's § 1983 excessive force claim.
2. Whether the district court erroneously directed a verdict for Sanchez on Madura's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.
3. Whether the district court erroneously granted the City's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on the assault and battery claims.
4. Whether the district court abused its discretion by:
(a) excluding Madura's medical records as evidence;
(b) allowing defense counsel to ask leading questions of Marciante on cross-examination;
(c) allowing testimony from a defense witness not identified prior to trial.
III.
We review de novo the grant of summary judgment, drawing all inferences and construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Univ. of Ala. Bd. Of Trs. v. New Life Art, Inc., 683 F.3d 1266, 1271 (11th Cir. 2012). Summary judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a).
We review de novo the grant of a Rule 50(a) motion for judgment as matter of law, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and affirming only if "reasonable people could not arrive at a contrary verdict." Ramirez v. Sec'y, U.S. Dep't. of Transp., 686 F.3d 1239, 1244 (11th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).
We review de novo the grant of a Rule 50(b) renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, viewing the evidence and drawing all inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Collado v. United Parcel Serv., Co., 419 F.3d 1143, 1149 (11th Cir. 2005). "Judgment as a matter of law for the defendant is due when there is insufficient evidence to prove an element of the claim, which means that no jury reasonably could have reached a verdict for the plaintiff on that claim." Id.
We review the district court's evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion and will reverse "only if the complaining party establishes that the evidentiary ruling resulted in a substantial prejudicial effect, thus warranting reversal of the jury's verdict." Anderson v. WBMG-42, 253 F.3d 561, 563 (11th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Salter v. Westra, 904 F.2d 1517, 1519 n.1 (11th Cir. 1990) (reviewing for abuse of discretion a district court's overruling an objection to leading questions); Fabrica Italiana Lavorazione Materie Organiche, S.A.S. v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp., 684 F.2d 776, 780 (11th Cir. 1982) (reviewing for abuse of discretion a district court's allowance of a witness not identified prior to trial).
IV.
After reviewing the extensive record in this case, reading the parties' briefs and having the benefit of oral argument, we conclude that the district court erred in granting summary judgment based on qualified immunity on the § 1983 false arrest claims against Marciante and Sanchez and the excessive force claim against Sanchez and in granting summary judgment on the false arrest/false imprisonment tort claim against the City. The district court also erred in granting judgment as a matter of law on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against Sanchez and the assault and battery tort claims against the City. At each of these stages of the proceedings, the district court failed to view the facts in the light most favorable to Madura and to draw all reasonable inferences in her favor. Instead, the district court improperly gave greater weight to the officers' testimony. Because this case will be remanded and tried again, we need not determine whether the district court abused its discretion in allowing or refusing certain evidence or testimony.
We therefore vacate: (1) the district court's grant of summary judgment on Madura's § 1983 false arrest claims against Marciante and Sanchez, state law false arrest/false imprisonment claim against the City, and § 1983 excessive force claim against Sanchez; (2) the directed verdict for Sanchez on Madura's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim; and (3) the grant of the City's post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law on Madura's assault and battery claims. We also set aside the jury's verdict in favor of Marciante on Madura's § 1983 excessive force claim, as well as the jury's verdict against the City on Madura's state law assault and battery claims. We remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
We must vacate the verdicts in favor of Marciante and against the City because it is now possible, on remand, that the jury will decide that the officers unlawfully pursued and arrested Madura. If the jury determines that Madura was falsely arrested, then the jury will necessarily be instructed differently concerning Officer Marciante's use of force. See Bashir v. Rockdale Cnty., Ga., 445 F.3d 1323, 1331-32 (11th Cir. 2006) ("Under this Circuit's law . . . a claim that any force in an illegal stop or arrest is excessive is subsumed in the illegal stop or arrest claim and is not a discrete excessive force claim" because "if an arresting officer does not have the right to make an arrest, he does not have the right to use any degree of force in making that arrest." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
VACATED and REMANDED.
APPENDIX I
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦Madura's version of the facts ¦Appellees' version of the facts ¦ +---------------------------------------+-------------------------------------¦ ¦Martinez says that he told the police's¦The confidential informant working ¦ ¦confidential informant that others ¦with police to catch Martinez ¦ ¦would come to the Taco Bell, but ¦communicated to the police that other¦ ¦Martinez says he did not identify or ¦drug purchasers associated with ¦ ¦describe the others he expected. Thus, ¦Martinez, including a white female, ¦ ¦the police had no reason to suspect ¦might arrive at the Taco Bell to ¦ ¦Madura's association with Martinez. ¦purchase ecstasy. ¦ +---------------------------------------+-------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦Madura sped and drove her car ¦ ¦Upon seeing armed men taking Martinez ¦erratically from the Taco Bell ¦ ¦down, Madura promptly backed out of her¦parking lot. Sanchez, believing that ¦ ¦parking spot at Taco Bell, drove to the¦other drug purchasers were coming to ¦ ¦exit, and waited before safely entering¦meet Martinez, noticed that Madura ¦ ¦traffic at a reasonable speed. Within a¦never got out of her car and that she¦ ¦couple of blocks, she stopped for a red¦drove away in haste. He instructed ¦ ¦light. ¦his subordinate officers to stop her ¦ ¦ ¦car. ¦ +---------------------------------------+-------------------------------------¦ ¦At least two unmarked police SUVs ¦Officers Marciante, Starnes and Davis¦ ¦surrounded Madura's car at the red ¦pursued Madura, positioned a police ¦ ¦light; one SUV pulled in front of her, ¦SUV in front of Madura's car, ¦ ¦blocking her passage. At least three ¦approached her door and repeatedly ¦ ¦unidentified men in black approached ¦instructed her to get out of the car ¦ ¦Madura with guns pointed at her head ¦and raise her hands. Starnes and ¦ ¦shouting, "get out of the car, bitch, ¦Davis say that they yelled ¦ ¦get the f--- out" and "f---ing whore." ¦repeatedly, "Police, let me see your ¦ ¦One man, Officer Starnes, opened his ¦hands!" The officers' vests ¦ ¦SUV door into her front bumper, ¦identified them as "police." No ¦ ¦damaging her car. No one identified ¦officers used profanity to frighten ¦ ¦themselves to Madura as police, but she¦or insult Madura. ¦ ¦understood their order to get out. ¦ ¦ +---------------------------------------+-------------------------------------¦ ¦Madura hesitated at first, but put the ¦Because Madura kept her hands on the ¦ ¦car in park without moving forward ¦steering wheel, the officers believed¦ ¦toward the police SUV. She unfastened ¦she did not intend to comply. ¦ ¦her seatbelt and opened her door. ¦Marciente opened Madura's door as the¦ ¦Before she could get out, Marciante ¦car rolled forward and struck the ¦ ¦grabbed Madura by her hair and neck and¦police SUV. Marciente ordered her to ¦ ¦threw her face down on the pavement, ¦put the car in park because he ¦ ¦causing ¦believed she could ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦injure Officer Starnes, who was in ¦ ¦ ¦front of her car. Marciante then used ¦ ¦ ¦force to remove Madura from the car. ¦ ¦an abrasion on her forehead. ¦Other officers agreed that Marciante ¦ ¦ ¦grabbed Madura's left shoulder and ¦ ¦ ¦physically removed her with force from ¦ ¦ ¦the car before placing her face down to¦ ¦ ¦the pavement. ¦ +-------------------------------------+---------------------------------------¦ ¦Marciante straddled Madura from ¦ ¦ ¦behind, grabbed her hair and neck, ¦Marciante knelt on the ground beside ¦ ¦and repeatedly yelled "you f---ing ¦Madura, handcuffing her without bearing¦ ¦bitch" while placing his weight on ¦any weight on her back before returning¦ ¦her back. He then handcuffed Madura ¦her to a standing position. ¦ ¦and grabbed her hair again to pull ¦ ¦ ¦her into a standing position ¦ ¦ +-------------------------------------+---------------------------------------¦ ¦Police drove Madura back to the Taco ¦ ¦ ¦Bell parking lot where Sanchez ¦Back at the Taco Bell parking lot, the ¦ ¦identified himself as the officer in ¦officers realized their mistake, ¦ ¦charge. Madura was interrogated for ¦explained themselves, and apologized to¦ ¦about 15 minutes while officers ¦Madura. From pursuit to apology, the ¦ ¦searched her car. After about half an¦events took 15 to 20 minutes. ¦ ¦hour in handcuffs, Madura was ¦ ¦ ¦released without being charged. ¦ ¦ +-------------------------------------+---------------------------------------¦ ¦Sanchez threatened Madura and caused ¦Sanchez denies threatening Madura or ¦ ¦her to fear reporting their ¦her father about suing or complaining. ¦ ¦misconduct or suing them. Sanchez ¦He only offered to have the City assist¦ ¦told Madura that the police had ¦with car repairs or medical treatment. ¦ ¦powerful connections, e.g., to ¦Sanchez testified that Madura actually ¦ ¦immigration enforcement agencies, and¦insinuated that she would take it easy ¦ ¦that they could make her life ¦on them if they would help her get a ¦ ¦difficult. He similarly threatened ¦child psychologist's job with the City,¦ ¦her father on the phone after the ¦or help her with her immigration ¦ ¦incident. ¦status. ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+