Lopez v. United States of America et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for new trial [Doc. # 93 ] is denied. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 4/2/14. (KJS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Case No. 4:11-CV-891 (CEJ)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Manny Lopez was a passenger in a vehicle involved in a collision with a
United States Postal Services truck. He filed suit for damages under the Federal Tort
Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671 et seq. On December 16, 2013, following a bench trial,
the Court entered judgment in favor of defendant. Plaintiff moves for a new trial
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59. Defendant has filed a brief in opposition to the motion.
Rule 59(a) provides that a court may grant a new trial “after a nonjury trial, for
any reason for which a rehearing has heretofore been granted in a suit in equity in
federal court.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(a)(1)(B). Upon such a motion, a court may “open the
judgment if one has been entered, take additional testimony, amend findings of fact
and conclusions of law or make new ones, and direct the entry of a new judgment.”
“The key question in determining whether a new trial is
warranted is whether it is necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice.” Haigh v.
Gelita USA, Inc., 632 F.3d 464, 471 (8th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted).
In support of his motion for a new trial, plaintiff argues that the evidence
establishes that he is entitled to judgment under Missouri’s “rear-end collision doctrine”
and that the Court erred in allowing opinion testimony from police officer Janet McKern.
Plaintiff’s motion restates the factual and legal assertions he made in his post-trial brief
and thus fails to state any grounds supporting a new trial. Having reviewed plaintiff’s
motion and his previous arguments, the Court concludes that a new trial is not
necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for new trial [Doc. #93] is
CAROL E. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 2nd day of April, 2014.
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?