United States v. Americus Mortg. Corp.
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division
September 14, 2017, Decided; September 14, 2017, Filed, Entered
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:12-CV-2676
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Allied's Motion for New Trial. Dkt. 505. "The court [*3] may, on motion, grant a new trial on all or some of the issues—and to any party ... after a jury trial, for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an action at law in federal court." Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(1)(A). "A new trial may be granted, for example, if the district court finds the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the damages awarded are excessive, the trial was unfair, or prejudicial error was committed in its course." Smith v. Transworld Drilling Co., 773 F.2d 610, 613 (5th Cir. 1985) (footnotes omitted). See also Beckham v. La. Dock Co., L.L.C., 124 Fed. App'x. 268, 270 (5th Cir. 2005); Vackar v. Sentry Supply Inc., No. CIV.A. H-12-3716, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8221, 2015 WL 338616, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 26, 2015).
A Rule 59 motion is not granted "unless it is reasonably clear that prejudicial error has crept into the record or that substantial justice has not been done, and the burden of showing harmful error rests on the party seeking the new trial." Sibley v. Lemaire, 184 F.3d 481, 487 (5th Cir. 1999) (quotation marks omitted). "Unless justice requires otherwise, no error in admitting or excluding evidence—or any other error by the court or a party—is ground for granting a new trial .... At every stage of the proceeding, the court must disregard all errors and defects that do not affect any party's substantial rights." Fed. R. Civ. P. 61. In determining whether to grant a motion for new trial, the court must view the evidence "in a light most favorable [*4] to the jury's verdict." Dawson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 978 F.2d 205, 208 (5th Cir. 1992).
Significant deference is owed to the jury's verdict; "a new trial should not be granted unless the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence, not merely the preponderance of the evidence." Dresser-Rand Co. v. Virtual Automation, Inc., 361 F.3d 831, 838-39 (5th Cir. 2004) (internal citation omitted); see also Pryor v. Trane Co., 138 F.3d 1024, 1026 (5th Cir. 1998) (explaining that courts affirm the verdict unless the evidence "points so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of one party that the court believes that reasonable men could not arrive at a contrary conclusion." (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)).Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149379 *
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, VS. AMERICUS MORTGAGE CORPORATION et al, Defendant.
Prior History: United States v. Americus Mortg. Corp., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128592 (S.D. Tex., Sept. 9, 2013)
new trial, prejudicial error, motion for a new trial, jury's verdict, great weight, extrapolation, methodology, statistical, quotation, mortgage, reliable, courts, unfair, crept, marks