Prato et al v. Hacienda Del Mar, LLC
Filing
155
OPINION AND ORDER denying 137 Motion for judgment as a Matter of Law and Motion for new trial; granting 140 Motion for turnover and firm shall immediately turn over the funds in escrow to counsel for defendant; denying as moot 142 Motion to sta y execution of judgment.. The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to Robert C. Benedict, Esq., care of Berntsson, Ittersagen, Gunderson, Waksler & Wideikis, LLP, at 1861 Placida Road, Suite 204 Englewood, Florida 34223. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 7/14/2011. (RKR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
GARY PRATO; JOANNE C. MCMURRAY,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Case No.
HACIENDA DEL MAR, LLC a
Limited Liability Company,
2:08-cv-883-FtM-29SPC
Florida
Defendant.
___________________________________
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Renewed
Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Motion for New Trial
(Doc. #137), defendant’s Renewed Motion for Turnover (Doc. #140),
and Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Execution of Judgment in a Civil
Case (Doc. #142).
Responses were filed (Docs. #146, 151).
The
motions are resolved as set forth below.
I.
A Rule 50 judgment as a matter of law is appropriate when
there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable
jury to find for the non-moving party.
Optimum Techs., Inc. v.
Henkel Consumer Adhesives, Inc., 496 F.3d 1231, 1251 (11th Cir.
2007).
“[I]n deciding on a Rule 50 motion a district court’s
proper analysis is squarely and narrowly focused on the sufficiency
of evidence.” Chaney v. City of Orlando, 483 F.3d 1221, 1227 (11th
Cir. 2007).
As such, “[t]he jury’s findings should be excluded
from the decision-making calculus on a Rule 50(b) motion, other
than to ask whether there was sufficient evidence, as a legal
matter, from which a reasonable jury could find for the party who
prevailed at trial.”
Id. at 1228.
The Court looks at the record
evidence drawing all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.
Nurse “Be” v. Columbia Palms W. Hosp. L.P., 490 F.3d 1302, 1308
(11th Cir. 2007).
A jury verdict “must be left intact if there is
evidence from which the decision maker . . . reasonably could have
resolved the matter the way it did.”
Rodriguez v. Farm Stores
Grocery, Inc., 518 F.3d 1259, 1264 (11th Cir. 2008).
Even if the
evidence would have supported a verdict for the losing party,
“[t]he issue is not whether the evidence was sufficient for [the
losing party] to have won, but whether the evidence was sufficient
for it to have lost.”
Id. at 1264-65.
Plaintiffs had the burden of establishing their claims.
jury found plaintiffs had not done so.
The
Applying the standards set
forth above, the Court finds that the evidence was sufficient to
support the jury’s determinations. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion
for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b) is denied.
II.
A Rule 59 motion for a new trial may be granted “for any
reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an
action at law in federal
59(a)(1)(A).
court; . . .”
Fed. R. Civ. P.
Such reasons include a verdict which is against the
weight of the evidence, substantial errors in the admission or
-2-
rejection of evidence, Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Duncan, 311 U.S.
243,
251
(1940),
and
improper
opening
statements
or
closing
arguments, Christopher v. Florida, 449 F.3d 1360, 1365-66 (11th
Cir. 2006).
Resolution of a motion for a new trial is committed to
the discretion of the trial court.
Montgomery v. Noga, 168 F.3d
1282, 1295 (11th Cir. 1999).
Plaintiffs argue they are entitled to a new trial because the
evidence is insufficient to support the verdict, or the verdict is
against the great weight of the evidence.
A district court should
grant a motion for new trial when “the verdict is against the clear
weight of the evidence or will result in a miscarriage of justice,
even though there may be substantial evidence which would prevent
the direction of a verdict. . . . Because it is critical that a
judge does not merely substitute his judgment for that of the jury,
new trials should not be granted on evidentiary grounds unless, at
a minimum, the verdict is against the great -- not merely the
greater
--
Steakhouse
weight
of
of
Brandon,
the
evidence.”
Inc.,
267
Lipphardt
F.3d 1183,
1186
2001)(internal quotations and citation omitted).
v.
Durango
(11th
Cir.
The Court finds
that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdicts and that
the verdicts were not against the clear weight of the evidence and
will not result in a miscarriage of justice.
Even if the Court
weighs the evidence, Watts v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 842
F.2d 307, 310 (11th Cir. 1988), the Court concludes that the
-3-
evidence is sufficient to support the verdicts and the verdicts are
not against the great weight of the evidence.
The undersigned
presided over the trial and is satisfied the jury’s verdicts were
not the result of confusion or misunderstanding.
Accordingly,
plaintiff’s motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 59 is
denied.
III.
Having resolved the pending post-trial motions relating to the
merits of the case, the Court finds that the Renewed Motion for
Turnover (Doc. #140) is due to be granted.
A copy of this Order
will be provided to the firm holding funds in escrow.
The Court
also finds that plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay Execution of Judgment
(Doc. #142) is due to be denied as moot.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law
and Motion for New Trial (Doc. #137) is DENIED.
2.
Defendant’s Renewed Motion for Turnover (Doc. #140) is
GRANTED. Berntsson, Ittersagen, Gunderson, Waksler & Wideikis, LLP
shall immediately turn over the funds it is holding in escrow in
this case to counsel for defendant.
this
Order
to
Robert
C.
The Clerk shall send a copy of
Benedict,
Esq.,
care
of
Berntsson,
Ittersagen, Gunderson, Waksler & Wideikis, LLP, at 1861 Placida
Road, Suite 204 Englewood, Florida 34223.
-4-
3.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Execution of Judgment in a
Civil Case (Doc. #142) is DENIED as moot.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
July, 2011.
Copies:
Counsel of record
-5-
14th
day of
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?