Brenda K. Beal v. United States of America

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRENDA K. BEAL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 09-55135
D.C. No. 2:05-cv-01278-AHM-
AJW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
A. Howard Matz, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 16, 2010**
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Brenda K. Beal appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment awarding
her damages on her claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for clear error the district
FILED
NOV 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-55135 2
court’s damages determination. Shaw v. United States, 741 F.2d 1202, 1205 (9th
Cir. 1984). We affirm.
The district court did not clearly err in its calculation of damages because its
award of $35,000 was not so disproportionate to the evidence as to shock the
conscience. See Yako v. United States, 891 F.2d 738, 745 (9th Cir. 1989) (looking
to relevant state’s case law in reviewing an award of damages); Johnson v.
Stanhiser, 72 Cal. App. 4th 357, 361 (1999) (appellate court may interfere with
trier of fact’s damages determination “only where the sum awarded is so
disproportionate to the evidence as to suggest that the verdict was the result of
passion, prejudice, or corruption, or where the award is so out of proportion to the
evidence that it shocks the conscience”).
Beal’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --