The jury found in favor of Bianchi on his DFR claim, but this Court reversed, granting Roadway's motion for judgment as a matter of law. See Bianchi v. Roadway Exp., Inc., 441 F.3d 1278, 1279 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). We reasoned that Bianchi had waived any claim that Marr represented him in bad faith by failing to raise it before the arbitration committee.
A district court's denial of a defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law is reviewed de novo, applying the same legal standard as the district court. See Bianchi v. Roadway Express, Inc., 441 F.3d 1278, 1282 (11th Cir. 2006). Judgment as a matter of law should be granted when "there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue."
We review the district court's denial of a motion for new trial for abuse of discretion. Bianchi v. Roadway Express, Inc., 441 F.3d 1278, 1282 (11th Cir. 2006). We review jury instructions to determine "whether the jury charges, considered as a whole, sufficiently instructed the jury so that the jurors understood the issues and were not misled.
October 10, 2006.Reported below: 441 F. 3d 1278.Certiorari denied
Parties to arbitration—or appraisal—must, in the face of known potential bias, object or hold their peace. See Bianchi v. Roadway Exp., Inc., 441 F.3d 1278, 1286 (11th Cir. 2006). Westchester waived its objection by not raising it sooner.
We review de novo a district court's denial of a motion for JNOV, "applying the same legal standard as the district court." Bianchi v. Roadway Express, Inc., 441 F.3d 1278, 1282 (11th Cir. 2006). "A [JNOV] is permissible only when, without weighing the credibility of witnesses, the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of one party, that a reasonable jury could not arrive at a contrary verdict; where substantial conflicting evidence exists in the record, a [JNOV] is improper."
We review a district court's denial of a motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. See Bianchi v. Roadway Express, Inc., 441 F.3d 1278, 1282 (11th Cir. 2006). The district court's evidentiary rulings are also reviewed for abuse of discretion. Proctor v. Fluor Enter., Inc., 494 F.3d 1337, 1349 n.7 (11th Cir. 2007).
A ruling on a party's “motion for judgment as a matter of law is reviewed de novo, applying the same legal standard as the district court.” Bianchi v. Roadway Express, Inc., 441 F.3d 1278, 1282 (11th Cir.2006); see also Nat'l Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Fortune Constr. Co., 320 F.3d 1260, 1267–68 (11th Cir.2003) (“We review a district court's grant of judgment as a matter of law de novo, evaluating whether such sufficient conflicts exist in the evidence to necessitate submitting the matter to the jury or whether the evidence is so weighted in favor of one side that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” (quoting Thosteson v. United States, 304 F.3d 1312, 1316 (11th Cir.2002))). A losing party may also move for a new trial under Rule 59 on the grounds that “the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, that the damages are excessive, or that, for other reasons, the trial was not fair ... and may raise questions of law arising out of alleged substantial errors in admission or rejection of evidence or instructions to the jury.”
We review de novo a district court's denial of judgment as a matter of law. Bianchi v. Roadway Express, Inc., 441 F.3d 1278, 1282 (11th Cir.2006) (per curiam). Where a legally sufficient basis exists for a reasonable jury to find for a particular party on an issue, judgment as a matter of law is not proper.See Cook ex rel. Estate of Tessier v. Sheriff of Monroe Cnty., Fla., 402 F.3d 1092, 1114 (11th Cir.2005).
We review a district court's denial of Rule 59(a), Rule 59(e), and Rule 60(b)(3) motions for an abuse of discretion. Bianchi v. Roadway Express, Inc., 441 F.3d 1278, 1282 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam); Case v. Eslinger, 555 F.3d 1317, 1325 (11th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted); Cox Nuclear Pharmacy, Inc. v. CTI, Inc., 478 F.3d 1303, 1314 (11th Cir. 2007). To prevail on a Rule 60(b)(3) motion requesting relief from a final judgment due to fraud, "the movant must prove by clear and convincing evidence that an adverse party has obtained the verdict through fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct."