Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-09-30605/USCOURTS-ca5-09-30605-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 

---

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-30605 cons/W 09-30934

Summary Calendar

MOTHARAM, INC.

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendant-Appellee

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:07-CV-4499

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-Appellant Motharam, Inc. instituted this action against

Defendant-Appellee Scottsdale Insurance Company (“Scottsdale”), the issuer of

the insurance policy covering Motharam’s immovable property located at 637

Canal Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, that was damaged by wind and rain

during Hurricane Katrina. In its lawsuit, Motharam sought recovery from

Scottsdale in an amount greater than it had already paid on Motharam’s claim.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 27, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 09-30605 Document: 00511092760 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/27/2010
No. 09-30605 cons/W 09-30934

2

After a two-day trial, the jury rejected Motharam’s demands, and the district

court entered judgment dismissing Motharam’s action with prejudice.

Thereafter, the district court entered an order denying Motharam’s

motions for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b) (which Motharam had

waived by failing to file a motion therefor at the close of the evidence) and,

alternatively, for a new trial under Rules 59(a) and 60. In so doing, the district

court patiently and exhaustively laid out the factual and legal bases for its

denials. Then, after Motharam filed a motion to reconsider that order, the

district court again set forth in detail the factual and legal bases for denying

reconsideration.

We have now examined the extensive record on appeal and the relevant

facts and applicable law as set forth in the briefs of the parties and as

supplemented by our independent research. As a result, we are convinced that

the correctly conducted jury trial and the verdict reached by the jury are fully

sustainable and free of reversible error, that the motions for judgment as a

matter of law, new trial, and reconsideration filed by Motharam were correctly

rejected by the district court for the cogent reasons set forth in its orders of

August 27 and September 24, 2009, and that the judgment of the district court

must be, and hereby is, AFFIRMED.

 Case: 09-30605 Document: 00511092760 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/27/2010