Ponzini et al v. Monroe County et al
Filing
401
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 354 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or, in the alternative, motion for a new trial or, in the alternative, motion to alter or amend the judgment (remittitur) as follows: 1.Dr. Alex Thomas renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiffs section 1983 claim is GRANTED. 2.Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(c), should the Court of Appeals reverse or vacate the Courts entry of judgment as a matter of law for Dr. Alex Thomas on Plaintiffs section 1983 claim, the Court conditionally DENIES Dr. Thomas motion for a new trial. 3.Dr. Thomas motion for judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiffs negligence claim is DENIED. 4.Dr. Thomas motion for a new trial on Plaintiffs negligence claim is DENIED. 5.Dr. Thomas motion for a new trial on damages and/or remittitur is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Robert D. Mariani on 8/30/17 (jam)
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PETER PONZINI, ESQUIRE and
MIRYEM BARBAROS, as
Co-Administrators of the Estate of
Mumun Barbaros, Deceased,
Plaintiffs,
v.
3:11-CV-00413
(JUDGE MARIANI)
PRIMECARE MEDICAL INC., et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
AND NOW, THISĀ°?{)'/z,DAY OF AUGUST 2017, upon consideration of Dr. Alex
Thomas' "renewed motion [ ] for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, motion for
a new trial or, in the alternative, motion to alter or amend the judgment (remittitur)" (Doc.
354), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Dr. Alex Thomas' motions are GRANTED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART as follows:
1. Dr. Alex Thomas' renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on
Plaintiffs' section 1983 claim is GRANTED.
2. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure SO(c), should the Court of
Appeals reverse or vacate the Court's entry of judgment as a matter of law
for Dr. Alex Thomas on Plaintiffs' section 1983 claim, the Court conditionally
DENIES Dr. Thomas' motion for a new trial.
3. Dr. Thomas' motion for judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiffs' negligence
claim is DENIED.
4. Dr. Thomas' motion for a new trial on Plaintiffs' negligence claim is DENIED.
5. Dr. Thomas' motion for a new trial on damages and/or remittitur is DENIED.
I
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?