In Re: LLS America LLC (Kriegman v. Lazy M LLC) WAEB BK Adv Proceeding No 11-80125-PCW11

Filing 177

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL AND/OR TO AMEND JUDGMENT. Denying 176 Motion for New Trial. Signed by Chief Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (SK, Case Administrator)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6
7

9

LLS AMERICA, LLC,
Debtor,
BRUCE P. KRIEGMAN, solely in his
capacity as court-appointed Chapter 11
Trustee for LLS America, LLC,

10

Plaintiff,

8

11

NO: 2:12-CV-668-RMP
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL
AND/OR TO AMEND JUDGMENT

v.

12

LAZY M, LLC, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
BEFORE THE COURT is Defendant David Perry’s Motion for a New Trial
15
and/or to Amend Judgment, 1 ECF No. 176. The Court has reviewed the record and
16
is fully informed.
17
18
19
1

The Motion most closely resembles a Motion for a New Trial and/or to Amend

20
Judgment but Perry refers to his Motion as a “‘Notice of Fraud Before the Court’
21
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL AND/OR
TO AMEND JUDGMENT ~ 1

1

ANALYSIS

2

Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 59:

3

The court may, on motion, grant a new trial on all or some of the issues--and
to any party--as follows: . . . .
(B) after a nonjury trial, for any reason for which a rehearing has heretofore
been granted in a suit in equity in federal court.

4
5

Following a nonjury trial and upon motion for a new trial, a court may “open the
6
judgment if one has been entered, take additional testimony, amend findings of fact
7
and conclusions of law or make new ones, and direct the entry of a new judgment.”
8
FED. R. CIV. P. 59. “There are three grounds for granting new trials in court-tried
9
actions under Rule 59(a)(2): (1) manifest error of law; (2) manifest error of fact;
10
and (3) newly discovered evidence.” Brown v. Wright, 588 F.2d 708, 710 (9th Cir.
11
1978) (citing 6A Moore's Federal Practice P 59.07 at 59-94).
12
In his current motion, Defendant David Perry seeks to re-litigate issues that
13
have already been determined at trial by presenting evidence that was previously
14
before this Court and has already been considered. Defendant’s different
15
interpretations of evidence that have already been considered by this Court are not
16
proper grounds for granting a new trial. He fails to provide this Court with
17
evidence of any error of fact or law or any newly discovered evidence. His claims
18
19

‘Manifest Injustice’ Motion for New Trial as Necessary for Justice and/or

20

Amending Judgement.”

21
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL AND/OR
TO AMEND JUDGMENT ~ 2

1

regarding “manifest injustice” are unpersuasive and this Court finds no good cause

2

to grant a new trial.

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

4

1.

5
6
7
8

Defendant David Perry’s Motion for New Trial and/or to Amend

Judgment, ECF No. 176, is DENIED.
The District Court Clerk is directed to enter this Order and provide a copies
to counsel.
DATED this 9th day of December.

9
10

s/ Rosanna Malouf Peterson
ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON
Chief United States District Court Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL AND/OR
TO AMEND JUDGMENT ~ 3