Feagins et al v. Trump Organization et al

Filing 179

ORDER that 176 Motion for New Trial is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 9/11/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

KEVIN FEAGINS, et al.,
4

Plaintiffs,

5

vs.

6

OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, et al.,
7

Defendants.

8

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:11-cv-1121-GMN-GWF
ORDER

9

On September 28, 2016, the Court concluded a three-day jury trial, in which the jury

10
11

assessed damages in the amount of $17,500.00 in favor of Plaintiff Andre Feagins. (See Verdict

12

Forms, ECF Nos. 165, 167). Now pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for New Trial

13

solely on the issue of damages pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a). (ECF No.

14

176). Defendant Otis Elevator Company (“Defendant”) filed a response, (ECF No. 177), and

15

Plaintiffs filed a reply, (ECF No. 178). For the reasons discussed herein, Plaintiffs’ Motion for

16

New Trial is DENIED.

17
18

I.

LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a)(1) provides that “[t]he court may, on motion,

19

grant a new trial on all or some of the issues—and to any party—as follows: (A) after a jury

20

trial, for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an action at law in

21

federal court [.]” While Rule 59 does not specify the grounds on which a motion for a new trial

22

may be granted, “[h]istorically recognized grounds include, but are not limited to, claims ‘that

23

the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, that the damages are excessive, or that, for

24

other reasons, the trial was not fair to the party moving.’” Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d

25

724, 729 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Duncan, 311 U.S. 243, 251

Page 1 of 3

1

(1940)). A new trial should not be granted unless, after giving full respect to the jury’s

2

findings, the Court “is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been

3

committed.” Landes Const. Co. v. Royal Bank of Canada, 833 F.2d 1365, 1371-72 (9th Cir.

4

1987). “The grant of a new trial is ‘confided almost entirely to the exercise of discretion on the

5

part of the trial court.’” Murphy v. City of Long Beach, 914 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1990)

6

(quoting Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33 (1980)).

7
8

II.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs argue that the Court should grant a new trial because: (1) the jury mistakenly

9

failed to follow the jury instructions; and (2) the verdict is against the clear weight of evidence.

10

(Mot. for New Trial, ECF No. 176). Specifically, Plaintiffs believe that the jurors’ affirmative

11

answer to “Question No. 5” on the special verdict form indicates that the jury determined each

12

plaintiff was entitled to damages. (Pl.’s Reply 2:16–24, ECF No. 178). According to Plaintiffs,

13

“[t]he failure to assess Plaintiffs’ damages or injuries determined to have been suffered by all of

14

them in the special verdict form cannot be reconciled with the assessment of damages in the

15

general verdict form for only Plaintiff Andre Feagins . . . .” (Id. 4:1–3)

16

The Court does not agree with Plaintiffs’ characterization of the verdict forms. Question

17

No. 5 in the special verdict form reads: “[w]as the defect a proximate cause of damage or injury

18

to the plaintiffs?” (Special Jury Verdict, ECF No. 167). In answering “yes” to this question, the

19

jury is in no way indicating that damages must be awarded to all of the plaintiffs. Rather, the

20

assessment of damages to any one of the plaintiffs necessarily requires an affirmative answer to

21

this question.

22

The relationship between Question No. 5 and the ultimate calculation of damages is

23

further clarified by Jury Instruction No. 16, which states that “[i]n determining the amount of

24

losses, if any, suffered by the plaintiffs as a proximate result of the accident in question, you

25

will take into consideration the nature, extent and duration of the injuries . . . .” (Jury

Page 2 of 3

1

Instructions, ECF No. 162) (emphasis added). The jury therefore had the discretion to evaluate

2

whether Defendant was the proximate cause of any damages to Plaintiffs generally, and if so,

3

separately determine the amount of damages, if any, entitled to each individual plaintiff.

4

The Court therefore finds that the jury properly followed the instructions and did not

5

render a contradictory verdict. Furthermore, the Court rejects Plaintiffs’ contention that the

6

verdict is against the clear weight of evidence. See Molski, 481 F.3d at 729.

7

III.

8
9

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for New Trial, (ECF No. 176), is

DENIED.

10
11

11
DATED this _____ day of September, 2017.

12
13
14

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Court

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 3 of 3