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)
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?