Opinion
Civil Action No. 3: 03-CV-2968-B.
May 5, 2005
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Lucinda A. Chapoy's Motion for Partial New Trial (doc. 92), filed February 22, 2005. After review of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, the Court DENIES Chapoy's Motion.
Following a three day jury trial, the jury returned a verdict for Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. on all of Chapoy's causes of action on February 10, 2005. The Court entered its Judgment pursuant to the jury's verdict on February 16, 2005. Chapoy then filed the instant motion.
Pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court may grant a new trial upon motion of a party. However, "[c]ourts do not grant new trials unless it is reasonably clear that prejudicial error has crept into the record or that substantial justice has not been done, and the burden of showing harmful error rests on the party seeking the new trial." Sibley v. Lemaire, 184 F.3d 481, 487 (5th Cir. 1999). Here, Chapoy argues that several of the Court's evidentiary rulings, as well as allegedly improper arguments of counsel, were prejudicial to Chapoy. Chapoy also asserts that the jury's verdict was against the great weight of credible evidence. A review of Chapoy's Motion, however, reveals that Chapoy is essentially making the same arguments that were made at the pretrial conference and at trial. Chapoy has not demonstrated prejudicial error or substantial injustice; therefore, the Court DENIES Chapoy's Motion for Partial New Trial. The jury's verdict of February 10, 2005 and the Court's Judgment of February 16, 2005 remain in force.
SO ORDERED.