Under this provision, district courts may grant a new trial where "a jury has reached a 'seriously erroneous result' as evidenced by . . . the verdict being against the weight of the evidence[.]" Holmes v. City of Massillon, 78 F.3d 1041, 1045-46 (6th Cir. 1996); see also Armisted v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 675 F.3d 989, 994-95 (6th Cir. 2012). "A district court's decision to deny a new-trial motion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, which means we will reverse only if we have 'a definite and firm conviction that the trial court committed a clear error of judgment.'"

Yet, given the winning party's right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment, we have described a grant of a new trial on weight-of-the-evidence grounds as a "rare" remedy. Armisted v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 675 F.3d 989, 995 (6th Cir. 2012). District courts should deny requests for new trials on these grounds whenever the jury rendered a reasonable verdict- even if the judge would have ruled the other way.

Applebaum contends that no reasonable jury could have reached this verdict, requiring a new trial. See Armisted v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. , 675 F.3d 989, 995 (6th Cir. 2012). We cannot agree.

This means that we will reverse the district court's decision “only if we have ‘a definite and firm conviction that the trial court committed a clear error of judgment.’ ” Armisted v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 675 F.3d 989, 995 (6th Cir.2012) (quoting Mich. First Credit Union v. Cumis Ins. Soc'y, Inc., 641 F.3d 240, 245–46 (6th Cir.2011)). A district court has discretion to grant a motion for a new trial if the court “determines that the verdict is clearly against the weight of the evidence.”

Having heard all this evidence at trial, the jury could have reasonably determined that the code-white incident that Mr. Morgan described during his testimony was the identical incident involving Ms. Hagedorn. See Armisted v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 675 F.3d 989, 995 (6th Cir. 2012) (stating that courts will uphold a verdict "if it was one which the jury reasonably could have reached" (citation omitted)). The Court lacks license to reweigh this evidence or to draw a conclusion that differs from the jury's conclusion, even if it believes another outcome would have been more reasonable.

In diversity cases, federal procedural law applies in determining whether a party is entitled to a new trial. Armisted v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 675 F.3d 989, 994 (6th Cir. 2012). Under Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may grant a new trial after a jury verdict "for any of the reasons for which new trials have heretofore been granted in actions at law in the courts of the United States."

As far as the record shows, that motion remains pending. Cf. Armisted v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 675 F.3d 989, 992-94 (6th Cir. 2012). The district court should decide in the first instance on the appropriate sanctions (if any) for the litigation that occurred there.

See, e.g., MetLife Life &Annuity Co. of Conn. v. Akpele, 886 F.3d 998, 1008 (11th Cir. 2018) (holding that award of attorney's fees is not final where amount of fee has not been quantified); Cooke v. Jackson Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 882 F.3d 630, 632 (7th Cir. 2018) (same); Orenshteyn v. Citrix Sys., Inc., 691 F.3d 1356, 1358-64 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (holding that decision to impose sanctions generally is not appealable until court determines and imposes sanction, and collecting cases); Armisted v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 675 F.3d 989, 993 (6th Cir. 2012) (same). We therefore dismiss this portion of the appeal.

II. This Court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo, Wilmington Tr. Co. v. AEP Generating Co., 859 F.3d 365, 370 (6th Cir. 2017), and applies Kentucky law in this diversity action, Armisted v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 675 F.3d 989, 995 (6th Cir. 2012). Because no facts are disputed, this case turns on the "[i]nterpretation and construction of an insurance contract," which is a "matter of law for the court."

II. We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, Wilmington Tr. Co. v. AEP Generating Co., 859 F.3d 365, 370 (6th Cir. 2017), and apply Kentucky law in this diversity action, Armisted v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 675 F.3d 989, 995 (6th Cir. 2012). Because no facts (let alone no material facts) are disputed, this case turns on the "[i]nterpretation and construction of an insurance contract," which is a "matter of law for the court."