Ridgway v. Sun Valley General Improvement District

Filing 59

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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 STEPHANIE RIDGWAY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) SUN VALLEY GENERAL IMPROVEMENT ) DISTRICT, ) ) Defendant. ) _________________________________ ) 3:15-cv-00002-HDM-WGC ORDER On March 8, 2017, a jury found for the defendant and against the 15 plaintiff in this action. 16 for a new trial. 17 Improvement District filed an opposition (ECF No. 57) and plaintiff 18 replied (ECF No. 58). Plaintiff Stephanie Ridgway filed a motion (ECF No. 54). Defendant Sun Valley General 19 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 permits a court to grant a new 20 trial “for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been 21 granted in an action at law in federal court.” 22 59(a)(1)(A). 23 rulings, the moving party must show that the rulings were both 24 erroneous and substantially prejudicial. See Ruvalcaba v. City of Los 25 Angeles, 64 F.3d 1323, 1328 (9th Cir. 1995). Fed. R. Civ. P. To obtain a new trial based on erroneous evidentiary 26 The plaintiff has failed to show that the court’s evidentiary 27 ruling regarding the alleged statement of the lifeguard was either 28 erroneous or substantially prejudicial. 1 1 In her motion, the plaintiff argues for the first time that the 2 alleged statement that she shouldn’t “feel bad [because]. . . [t]his 3 has happened before” or “that’s not the first time that somebody’s 4 gotten hurt” was not hearsay. 5 plain error to hold that these statements from an unnamed and 6 unidentified lifeguard constituted hearsay testimony. 7 The court concludes that it was not Second, neither the plaintiff nor her witnesses were able to 8 identify the person or persons who allegedly made this statement. 9 fact, the plaintiff said she believed it was not the lifeguard sitting In 10 at 11 unidentified lifeguard had been sufficiently startled by the events 12 to qualify any alleged statement as an excited utterance. 13 the corner Finally, of the the pool. lifeguards There was testified no at evidence trial that that on the other 14 occasions swimmers entered the pool on the slide and struck the bottom 15 of the pool and injured their feet. 16 prior injuries was presented to the jury and the ruling of the court 17 precluding, on hearsay grounds, vague testimony by the plaintiff and 18 her 19 substantially prejudicial to the plaintiff. 20 21 22 23 witnesses about statements of Therefore, direct evidence of unnamed lifeguards not Any other arguments raised by plaintiff in her motion are without merit. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion for a new trial (ECF No. 54) is denied. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 DATED: This 24th day of May, 2017. 26 27 was ____________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28 2

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?