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