1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

EARATON ADAMS, et al., ) 

Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) CIVIL ACTION NO 08-0155-KD-N 

vs. ) 

 ) 

AUSTAL, USA, L.LC., ) 

Defendant. ) 

 ORDER 

 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Beverly Thomas’ Rule 59 motion for new trial 

(Doc. 750), and a Rule 50 renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law as to Austal’s Faragher

defense and Rule 59 motion for new trial filed by Plaintiffs Earaton Adams, Myron Barnes, Carlos 

Johnson, Jermel Matthews, Jermaine Roberson, Charles Stills and George Wells. (Doc. 751).1 

Specifically, Plaintiffs seek new trials due to the following: 1) the Court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ 

Batson challenges during jury selection; 2) the Court allowing Austal to proceed with a Faragher

defense even though it failed to affirmatively plead same; 3) the Court’s exclusion of evidence 

demonstrating Austal’s knowledge of the severe or pervasive harassment and its failure to prove that 

it took prompt and effective remedial action to correct such harassment; 4) the Court’s admission of 

a highly prejudicial tape recording of a plaintiff; 5) the Court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ motions for 

mistrial; and 6) the great weight of the evidence regarding Plaintiffs’ hostile work environment and 

retaliation claims. 

 

1 Rule 50(b) allows a party to renew a motion for judgment as a matter of law after trial, if filed no later 

than 28 days after entry of judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b). The movant may include with the Rule 50(b) 

motion “an alternative or joint request for a new trial under Rule 59.” Id. Rule 59 provides in relevant 

part that “[t]he court, may, on motion, grant a new trial on all or some of the issues – and to any party – as 

follows: (A) after a jury trial, for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an action 

Case 1:08-cv-00155-KD-N Document 757 Filed 03/21/12 Page 1 of 3
2 

 A Rule 59 motion for a new trial may be granted for reasons including if “the verdict is 

against the weight of the evidence or will result in a miscarriage of justice.” Lipphardt v. Durango 

Steakhouse of Brandon, Inc., 267 F.3d 1183, 1186 (11th Cir. 2001). See also Montgomery Ward & 

Co. v. Duncan, 311 U.S. 243, 251, 61 S.Ct. 189, 85 L.Ed. 147 (1940). Resolution of a motion for a 

new trial is committed to the discretion of the trial court. Montgomery v. Noga, 168 F.3d 1282, 1295 

(11th Cir. 1999). Rather than establish that the jury verdicts are against the clear weight of the 

evidence, Plaintiffs instead simply rehash facts and arguments which have already been exhaustively 

presented to this Court. The foregoing issues were thoroughly argued by the parties and considered 

by the Court during these Plaintiffs’ trials. A motion for new trial is not a forum to relitigate old 

matters or to present arguments or evidence that could have been presented at trial. Michael Linet, 

Inc. v. Village of Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005). Nevertheless, considering 

Plaintiffs’ arguments and after having presided over these Plaintiffs’ trials, the Court finds that for 

those reasons set forth on the record, the evidence is sufficient to support the jury verdicts and that 

the verdicts are not against the great weight of the evidence. 

 As to the renewed Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law, such motion is 

appropriate when there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for the 

non-moving party. Optimum Techs., Inc. v. Henkel Consumer Adhesives, 496 F.3d 1231, 1251 (11th

Cir. 2007). A jury verdict “must be left intact if there is evidence from which the decision 

maker...reasonably could have resolved the matter the way it did.” Rodriguez v. Farm Stores 

Grocery, Inc., 518 F.3d 1259, 1264 (11th Cir. 2008). Even if the evidence would have supported a 

verdict for the losing party “[t]he issue is not whether the evidence was sufficient for [the losing 

 

at law in federal court[.]” Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(a)(1)(A).

Case 1:08-cv-00155-KD-N Document 757 Filed 03/21/12 Page 2 of 3
3 

party] to have won, but whether the evidence was sufficient for it to have lost.” Id. at 1264-1265. A 

“court must evaluate all the evidence, together with any logical inferences, in the light most 

favorable to the non-moving party.” Beckwith v. City of Daytona Beach Shores, Fla., 58 F.3d 1554, 

1560 (11th Cir. 1995). See also e.g., Nurse “BE” v. Columbia Palms West Hosp. L.P., 490 F.3d 

1302, 1308 (11th Cir. 2007). Plaintiffs bore the burden of establishing their claims. The jury found 

that the Plaintiffs had not done so. Upon consideration, the Court finds that for those reasons set 

forth on the record, the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s determinations. 

 Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the Plaintiffs’ motions (Docs. 750, 

751) are DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED this the 21st day of March 2012. 

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:08-cv-00155-KD-N Document 757 Filed 03/21/12 Page 3 of 3