Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Limary v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Idaho

October 18, 2018

CRYSTAL LIMARY, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. a Ohio corporation, and JOHN/JANE DOES I-X, whose true identities are unknown, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

          Honorable Edward J. Lodge U.S. District Judge

         INTRODUCTION

         Before the Court in the above entitled matter is Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial. (Dkt. 83.) The Motion is ripe for the Court's consideration. The facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and record. Accordingly, in the interest of avoiding further delay, and because the Court conclusively finds that the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument, the Motion is decided based on the record. For the reasons stated herein, the Court denies the Motion.

         FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff, Crystal Limary, brought this suit against her employer, Defendant United Parcel Service (UPS) alleging gender discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Idaho Human Rights Act. (Dkt. 1.) The Court granted UPS's Motion for Summary Judgment on the gender discrimination claim and the matter proceeded to trial on the retaliation claim in April of 2018. (Dkt. 28.)

         Prior to trial, the parties filed Motions in Limine in which they disagreed over, among other things, the admissibility of the Idaho Human Rights Commission's Investigator's Report and Commission Determination (IHRC Report). The IHRC Report contains the IHRC's finding of no probable cause in relation to Plaintiff's September 2013 charge of sexual discrimination and retaliation made against UPS. (Dkt. 33, 34.) The Court's Order on the Motions in Limine articulated its concerns regarding the IHRC Report and ultimately concluded that the report's admissibility would depend on how it is offered at trial. (Dkt. 46.)

         On re-direct of its final witness on the final day of trial, counsel for UPS questioned Jeff Grant regarding the IHRC Report and moved for its admission. The Court sustained the Plaintiff's objections and the report was not admitted. The Jury returned a verdict in favor of UPS. (Dkt. 82.) Plaintiff has now filed the instant Motion for a New Trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) arguing the method, manner, and timing of UPS's questioning regarding the IHRC Report violated this Court's rulings and resulted in the Jury's verdict against Plaintiff being influenced by passion and prejudice. (Dkt. 83.)

         STANDARD OF LAW

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) provides that a new trial may be granted on all or some of the issues to any party after a jury trial “for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted…in federal court.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(a)(1). Although Rule 59 does not specify the grounds on which a court may order a new trial, “[h]istorically recognized grounds include, but are not limited to, claims 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) (citation and marks omitted). Stated differently, “[t]he trial 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.” Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Prods., 212 F.3d 493, 510 n.15 (9th Cir. 2000). “[E]rroneous jury instructions, as well as the failure to give adequate instructions, are also bases for a new trial.” Murphy v. City of Long Beach, 914 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1990).

         “[T]he district court, in considering a Rule 59 motion for new trial, is not required to view the trial evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. Instead, the district court can weigh the evidence and assess the credibility of the witnesses.” Experience Hendrix L.L.C. v. Hendrixlicensing.com Ltd., 762 F.3d 829, 842 (9th Cir. 2014).

         “[T]he district court enjoys considerable discretion in granting or denying the motion.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d. 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal citation omitted). A Rule 59 motion “should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999).

         DISCUSSION

         Plaintiff argues a new trial is warranted under Rule 59(a) because the method, manner, and timing of UPS's questioning regarding the IHRC Report violated the Court's orders and resulted in a prejudicial verdict against Plaintiff. (Dkt. 83.) UPS maintains that throughout the trial, Plaintiff put at-issue her allegations of gender discriminations made to the IHRC; particularly during her cross-examination of Mr. Grant. (Dkt. 84.) The door was therefore opened by Plaintiff, UPS argues, for it to inquire into the IHRC Report and its determination of no probable cause. (Dkt. 84.) The Court finds UPS did not violate its orders and there was no prejudice against Plaintiff.

         1. No ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.