UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-22671-CIV-ALTONAGA/Torres

DELIO BATISTA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

AVANT ASSURANCE INC., et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on two motions: Defendant, Avant Assurance, Inc.’s 

Rule 59 Motion for New Trial and Unopposed Motion for Leave to Amend [ECF No. 113], filed 

on August 14, 2023; and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment to add Prejudgment 

Interest [ECF No. 11], filed on August 3, 2023. 

Following the jury trial (see [ECF Nos. 98–100, 102–03]), the Court entered Final 

Judgment [ECF No. 106] in accordance with the Verdict [ECF No. 104], awarding Delio Batista 

the sum of $54,511.00; Carlos Lopez the sum of $38,957.00; Mariana Lopez the sum of 

$15,576.00; and Rafaela Valiente the sum of $68,120.00. (See Final Judgment ¶¶ 1–4). In their 

opposed Motion, Plaintiffs seek to alter the Final Judgment to include an award of prejudgment 

interest to each Plaintiff. (See generally Pls.’ Mot.). 

In its Motion, Defendant contests the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the damages 

awarded and further seeks a remittitur on the basis that the damages are excessive. (See generally 

Def.’s Mot.). While Defendant’s Motion is timely filed, the official trial transcripts have not yet 

been completed, and so the Motion is based on Defendant’s “best efforts to draft a motion for new 

trial in the absence of a trial transcript.” (Id. 7 (citations omitted)). Defendant requests “leave to 

Case 1:22-cv-22671-CMA Document 114 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2023 Page 1 of 2
CASE NO. 22-22671-CIV-ALTONAGA/Torres

2

amend or supplement this motion upon receipt and review of the transcript.” (Id. (citations 

omitted)). Plaintiffs do not oppose Defendant’s request for leave to supplement the Motion, but 

they do oppose the request for a new trial or remittitur. (See id. 8).

Being full advised, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. Defendant’s Motion for New Trial [ECF No. 113] is ACCEPTED as timely filed

but DENIED without prejudice. The Court and the parties will benefit from waiting for 

a complete record. Accordingly — rather than having the parties supplement or amend 

their briefing (the Motion and any response and reply memoranda) once the trial transcript 

is completed — Defendant may file a renewed motion for a new trial and/or remittitur 

within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the trial transcript.

2. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment to add Prejudgment Interest [ECF 

No. 110] is DENIED without prejudice. Because Defendant’s request for a new trial puts 

the Final Judgment [ECF No. 106] into question, resolving the merits of Plaintiffs’ Motion 

at this time is premature. Should the Court ultimately deny Defendant’s request, Defendant 

will be directed to respond to the Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 15th day of August, 2023.

 ________________________________________

 CECILIA M. ALTONAGA

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 1:22-cv-22671-CMA Document 114 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2023 Page 2 of 2