Lopez v. United States of America et al

Filing 95

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
EASTERN DIVISION
MANNY LOPEZ,
Plaintiff,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

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.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(a)(2).

“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.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for new trial [Doc. #93] is
denied.

___________________________
CAROL E. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 2nd day of April, 2014.

-2-