Cooper, et al v. City of Plano et al
Filing
220
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR NEW TRIAL AND ADDITIONAL FINDINGS re 211 MOTION for New Trial filed by Teresa Ward Cooper, Jay S. Cooper. It is therefore ORDERED that the Plaintiffs' Request for New Trial and Additional Findings (Dkt. #211) is hereby DENIED. All other relief not specifically granted is hereby DENIED. Signed by Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 4/13/2015. (kls, )
United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
JAY S. COOPER
V.
CITY OF PLANO, ET AL.
§
§
§
§
§
§
CASE NO. 4:10-CV-689
Judge Mazzant
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR NEW TRIAL
AND ADDITIONAL FINDINGS
Pending before the Court is the Plaintiffs’ Request for New Trial and Additional Findings
(Dkt. #211). Having considered the Plaintiffs’ motion, and all relevant pleadings, the Court finds
that the motion should be denied.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for new trial on March 4, 2014) (Dkt. #211). On March 24, 2014,
Defendants filed a response (Dkt. #212). The case is currently assigned to the undersigned (Dkt.
#219).
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a), the Court may grant a new trial “for any reason for which
a new trial has heretofore been granted in an action at law in federal court.” For instance, the Court
has discretion to grant a new trial when it is necessary to prevent an injustice, when the jury's verdict
is against the manifest weight of the evidence, when the trial was unfair, when prejudicial error
occurred, or when the Court finds the damages imposed by the jury were excessive. Gov't Fin. Servs.
One Ltd. P'ship v. Peyton Place, Inc., 62 F.3d 767, 774-75 (5th Cir. 1995); Jones v. Wal–Mart
Stores, Inc., 870 F.2d 982, 986 (5th Cir. 1989); Smith v. Transworld Drilling Co., 773 F.2d 610,
612–13 (5th Cir. 1985). The motion is not properly considered a motion for “new trial” because
1
there was no trial. Moreover, even if this were a proper motion, Rule 59(e) provides that “[a] motion
to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.”
Thus, even if a proper motion, the motion was not filed timely.
The Court has previously considered this same relief, although now titled as motion for a new
trial, when the Court denied Plaintiffs’ Rule 60(b) motion (Dkt. #208). The Court adopts and
incorporates its prior decision issued on February 5, 2014 (Dkt. #208). Plaintiffs present no new
.
arguments or evidence.
It is therefore ORDERED that the Plaintiffs’ Request for New Trial and Additional Findings
(Dkt. #211) is hereby DENIED. All other relief not specifically granted is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 13th day of April, 2015.
___________________________________
AMOS L. MAZZANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?