Moore v. Omega Protein Corporation et al
ORDER AND REASONS denying 68 Motion for New Trial. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 5/27/2011. (caa, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
OMEGA PROTEIN, INC., et al.
SECTION “N” (4)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial (Rec. Doc. 68). This motion is
opposed by Defendants Omega Protein, Inc. and M/V RACCOON POINT (“hereinafter,
collectively, “Omega”) (Rec. Doc. 70). Specifically, Plaintiff requests that this Court grant a
new trial, arguing that the jury’s verdict was against the great weight of the evidence.
Rule 59(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in part that a court may grant
a motion for new trial “for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an
action at law in federal court.” The decision to grant or deny a motion for new trial falls within
the sound discretion of the district court. Foradori v. Harris, 528 F.3d 477, 503-04 (5th
Cir.2008). “A district court can grant a motion for new trial if the first trial was unfair or if the
jury verdict was against the great weight of the evidence.” Cates v. Creamer, 431 F.3d 456, 460
(5th Cir.2005); see also Smith v. Transworld Drilling Co., 773 F.2d 610, 613 (5th Cir.1985)(a
district court may grant a new trial if the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the
damages awarded are excessive, the trial is unfair, or prejudicial error was committed in the
course of the trial).
The Court, having reviewed the record, the applicable law, and memoranda of counsel,
finds, for substantially the same reasons stated by Omega, that Plaintiff has not demonstrated
that the jury's verdict was against the great weight of the evidence. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial (Rec. Doc. 68) is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 27th day of May 2011.
KURT D. ENGELHARDT
United States District Judge
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?