United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
Honorable Virginia M. Kendall, Judge.
HENDERSON PARKS, LLC Rebecca R. Kaiser One of the Attorneys
for Defendants Victor P. Henderson Rebecca R. Kaiser
HENDERSON PARKS, LLC.
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF
COME Defendants, Marie Paule Epee and Eric Ngando Epee, by
and through one of their attorneys, Rebecca R. Kaiser, and
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a), and move
this Court for judgment as a matter of law on Counts Two and
Three of her complaint. In support, Defendants state as
rested her case-in-chief on July 13, 2017. See,
Docket No. 223. Plaintiff has failed to present sufficient
evidence for a jury to find in her favor on Counts Two and
Three of her complaint. These counts allege that Defendants
violated the Trafficking Victims Protection and
Reauthorization Act (“TVPRA”) pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1589 and 18 U.S.C. §1590, respectively.
Because Plaintiff did not present any evidence to show that
Defendants forced her to work, admitted that
Defendants never forced her to work, and admitted
that she was free to move out of the Epee home at any time,
Counts Two and Three fail as a matter of law.
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 resolve the issue against the party
and 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. Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a)(1); Winters v.
Fru-Con Inc., 498 F.3d 734, 745- 746 (7th Cir. 2007).
The standard governing a Rule 50 motion mirrors that employed
in evaluating a summary judgment motion. Looking to all of
the evidence in the record, the Court must ask whether any
reasonable jury could have found for the nonmoving party.
Hammer v. Residential Credit Sols., Inc., No. 13 C
6397, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162636 at *8 (N.D. Ill.Dec. 3,
Plaintiff Has Not Presented Sufficient Evidence For A Jury To
Find In Her Favor On Count Two.
Count Two claims that Defendants held Plaintiff in violation
of 18 U.S.C. §1589, which provides, in relevant part:
(a) Whoever knowingly provides or obtains the labor or
services of a person by any one of, or by any
combination of, the following means-
(1) by means of force, threats of force, physical restraint,
or threats of physical restraint to that person or another
(2) by means of serious harm or threats of serious harm to
that person ...