Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02571/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02571-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 * This matter was determined to be suitable for decision

without oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LESTER E. PATRICK, )

) 2:03-cv-2571-GEB-JFM-PS

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER*

)

ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI, ) 

Secretary of Department of )

Veteran Affairs, )

)

Defendant. )

)

Plaintiff moves for a new trial under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 59, contending that “[t]he jury’s verdict went

against the clear weight of the evidence”; “[t]he witnesses were

not creditable” since they made numerous contradictory statements;

“[t]he jury did not follow the instructions of the judge” to

consider and discuss all evidence since the jury reached a verdict

within between 15 and 20 minutes; and “[t]he jury was confused

about direct evidence and circumstantial evidence,” as evidenced by

Case 2:03-cv-02571-GEB -JFM Document 95 Filed 08/19/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

one juror’s statement to Plaintiff that there was no direct

evidence of discrimination. (Pl.’s Mot. at 2-17.) Defendant

opposes the motion, arguing that the verdict was not contrary to

the clear weight of the evidence, a quick verdict is not evidence

of a failure to deliberate, and there is no evidence of juror

misconduct. (Def.’s Opp’n at 4-20.)

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a), “[t]he trial

judge [has] discretion to grant a new trial if the verdict appears

to [the judge] to be against the weight of the evidence.” 

Gasperini v. Ctr. for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415, 433 (1996)

(internal quotation marks omitted). “[A] stringent standard

applies when the motion is based on insufficiency of the evidence.”

Venegas v. Wagner, 831 F.2d 1514, 1519 (9th Cir. 1987). The

district court must find “that the jury's verdict is against the

great weight of the evidence, or it is quite clear that the jury

has reached a seriously erroneous result.” Ace v. Aetna Life Ins.

Co., 139 F.3d 1241, 1248 (9th Cir. 1998). If the evidence at trial

was “substantially balanced,” the motion should be denied. Roy v.

Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 896 F.2d 1174, 1179 (9th Cir. 1990).

Since the verdict was not against the weight of the

evidence, Plaintiff’s motion is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 19, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:03-cv-02571-GEB -JFM Document 95 Filed 08/19/05 Page 2 of 2