National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Plaintiff, v. John Davis Trucking Company, Inc.,

United States District Court,

Nevada.

National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Plaintiff,

John Davis Trucking Company, Inc., Defendant.

John Davis Trucking Company, Inc., Counterclaimant,

National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Union Pacific Railroad Company, and Does 1-5, Counterdefendants.

Union Pacific Railroad Company, Counterclaimant,

John Davis Trucking Company, Inc., Counterdefendant.

3:11-cv-00461-HDM-VPC

Signed January 25, 2016

Attorneys and Law Firms

Benjamin C. Hutchinson, John W. Ranucci, Liza Siu Mendoza, Vincent Castillo, Lombardi, Loper & Conant, LLP, Oakland, CA, John D. Moore, Moore Law Group, PC, Reno, NV, for National Railroad Passenger Corporation.

Jeffrey L. Hartman, Hartman & Hartman, Reno, NV, Kristen Chambers, Rick Stinson Pope, George L. Kirklin, Stephen C. Thompson, Kirklin Thompson & Pope LLP, Portland, OR, Gary E. Di Grazia, Goicoechea, Di Grazia, Coyle & Stanton, Ltd., Elko, NV, for John Davis Trucking Company, Inc.

Mark S. Landman, Landman Corsi Ballaine & Ford, P.C., New York, NY, Benjamin C. Hutchinson, Liza Siu Mendoza, Vincent Castillo, Lombardi, Loper & Conant, LLP, Oakland, CA, John D. Moore, Moore Law Group, PC, Reno, NV, for Union Pacific Railroad Company.

ORDER

HOWARD D. MCKIBBEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

*1 On August 27, 2014, the jury returned verdicts in favor of National Railroad Passenger Corporation (“Amtrak”) and Union Pacific Railroad Company (“Union Pacific”) (collectively “railroads”) and against John Davis Trucking Company, Inc. (“JDT”). On August 29, 2014, the jury awarded Amtrak $4,552,459.44 in damages and Union Pacific $210,777.04 in damages.

On September 24, 2014, JDT filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, or in the alternative, for a new trial (#775). The railroads have opposed (#807), and JDT has replied (#809).

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a), a party may move for judgment as a matter of law after the opposing party has been fully heard on an issue but before the case is submitted to the jury. E.E.O.C. v. Go Daddy Software, Inc., 581 F.3d 951, 961 (9th Cir. 2009); Freund v. Nycomed Amersham, 347 F.3d 752, 761 (9th Cir. 2003). If the court denies the Rule 50(a) motion and the jury returns a verdict against the moving party, the party may renew its motion under Rule 50(b). Id. The jury’s verdict must be upheld “if there was any ‘legally sufficient basis’ to support it.” Experience Hendrix L.L.C. v. Hendrixlicensing.com Ltd, 762 F.3d 829, 842 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Costa v. Desert Palace, Inc., 299 F.3d 838, 859 (9th Cir. 2002)). “In making that determination, the district court considers all of the evidence in the record, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party ….; the court may not make any credibility determinations or reweigh the evidence.” Id. “Judgment as a matter of law is proper when the evidence permits a reasonable jury to reach only one conclusion” and “that conclusion is contrary to the jury’s verdict.” Martin v. Calif. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 560 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Quiksilver, Inc. v. Kymsta Corp., 466 F.3d 749, 755 (9th Cir. 2006) and Pavao v. Pagay, 307 F.3d 915, 918 (9th Cir. 2002)). “If reasonable minds could differ as to the import of the evidence, … a verdict should not be directed.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250-51 (1986).

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59, a party may move for a new trial as to some or all issues. While the rule “does not specify the grounds on which a motion for a new trial may be granted,” the court is “bound by those grounds that have been historically recognized.” Zhang v. Am. Gem Seafoods, Inc., 339 F.3d 1020, 1035 (9th Cir. 2003). Examples of such grounds include “that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, that the damages are excessive, or that, for other reasons, the trial was not fair to the party moving.” Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Duncan, 311 U.S. 243, 251 (1940)). The Ninth Circuit has held that the court “may grant a new trial only if the verdict is contrary to the clear weight of the evidence, is based upon false or perjurious evidence, or to prevent a miscarriage of justice.” Id. (quoting Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Prods., 212 F.3d 493, 510 n. 15 (9th Cir. 2000)).

*2 JDT’s motion is comprised largely of arguments it has already raised—in some cases repeatedly—and which the court has already decided. For the reasons previously set forth by the court, its prior rulings on those issues are hereby reconfirmed. To the extent any arguments are raised that have not been previously addressed by the court, the court finds they are not supported by the law or facts of this case. A legally sufficient basis existed for the jury’s verdicts. The verdicts were not contrary to the clear weight of the evidence, the damages were reasonable and supported by the evidence, and there is no basis for concluding that the jury was presented with false or perjurious evidence. Finally, JDT received a fair trial on all issues raised. Accordingly, JDT’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law or in the alternative for a new trial (#775) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.