Ridgway v. Sun Valley General Improvement District
ORDER denying ECF No. 54 Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 05/24/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
SUN VALLEY GENERAL IMPROVEMENT
On March 8, 2017, a jury found for the defendant and against the
plaintiff in this action.
for a new trial.
Improvement District filed an opposition (ECF No. 57) and plaintiff
replied (ECF No. 58).
Plaintiff Stephanie Ridgway filed a motion
(ECF No. 54).
Defendant Sun Valley General
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 permits a court to grant a new
trial “for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been
granted in an action at law in federal court.”
rulings, the moving party must show that the rulings were both
erroneous and substantially prejudicial. See Ruvalcaba v. City of Los
Angeles, 64 F.3d 1323, 1328 (9th Cir. 1995).
Fed. R. Civ. P.
To obtain a new trial based on erroneous evidentiary
The plaintiff has failed to show that the court’s evidentiary
ruling regarding the alleged statement of the lifeguard was either
erroneous or substantially prejudicial.
In her motion, the plaintiff argues for the first time that the
alleged statement that she shouldn’t “feel bad [because]. . . [t]his
has happened before” or “that’s not the first time that somebody’s
gotten hurt” was not hearsay.
plain error to hold that these statements from an unnamed and
unidentified lifeguard constituted hearsay testimony.
The court concludes that it was not
Second, neither the plaintiff nor her witnesses were able to
identify the person or persons who allegedly made this statement.
fact, the plaintiff said she believed it was not the lifeguard sitting
unidentified lifeguard had been sufficiently startled by the events
to qualify any alleged statement as an excited utterance.
occasions swimmers entered the pool on the slide and struck the bottom
of the pool and injured their feet.
prior injuries was presented to the jury and the ruling of the court
precluding, on hearsay grounds, vague testimony by the plaintiff and
substantially prejudicial to the plaintiff.
Therefore, direct evidence of
Any other arguments raised by plaintiff in her motion are without
Therefore, plaintiff’s motion for a new trial (ECF No. 54) is
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: This 24th day of May, 2017.
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?