Scott v. Lackey, et al
ORDER denying Scott's motion for a new trial 458 & Scott's motion to alter or amend judgment entered in favor of Evan Adams 456 . (See order for complete details.) Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 08/15/12. (ki)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
TERESA ANNE SCOTT,
CIVIL NO. 1:02-CV-01586
AND NOW, this 15th day of August, 2012, upon consideration of plaintiff
Teresa Scott’s (“Scott”) Motion for a New Trial (Doc. 458), filed August 9, 2012, and
Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Entered in Favor of Evan Adams (Doc. 456),
filed August 9, 2012, and the court noting the a district court may grant a new trial
on all or some issues, see FED . R. CIV . P. 59(a), and that the decision whether to
grant a new trial is generally entrusted to the sound discretion of the district court,
see Greenleaf v. Garlock, Inc., 174 F.3d 352, 363-64 (3d Cir. 1999), and the court
noting that Scott has not produced a scintilla of evidence that a new trial is
warranted,1 it is hereby ORDERED that
The majority of Scott’s lengthy motion consists merely of arguing the
sufficiency of the evidence. Rather than refute each of the myriad ways she
believes the jury result was erroneous, it is enough to note the simple fact that the
jury clearly did not find her trial presentation to be credible. The rest of her motion
is dedicated to legal objections that are all baseless and generally waived,
particularly with regard to her disagreement with the jury instructions, as Scott
specifically stated on the record that she had no objection to the charge. Moreover,
contrary to Scott’s assertion, the court held a charge conference during which the
parties were given a paper copy of the court’s proposed instructions, as well as the
Scott’s Motion for a New Trial is DENIED.
Scott’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Entered in Favor of Evan
Adams is DENIED.
S/ Christopher C. Conner
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
United States District Judge
verdict form. Both parties had ample opportunity to raise objections or concerns.
Thus, the court fully complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 51(b).
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?