Johnson v. Hix Wrecker Serv., Inc.

7 Citing cases

  1. Exelon Bus. Servs. Co. v. Pelco Structural, LLC

    Case No. 16-cv-611 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 30, 2020)

    As Plaintiff recognizes, the Court has broad discretion in deciding whether to reopen a bench trial. See Johnson v. Hix Wrecker Serv., Inc., 528 F. App'x 636, 639 (7th Cir. 2013); [153, at 2]. Here, the Court declines to do so.

  2. Interlink Grp. Corp. USA, Inc. v. Am. Trade & Fin. Corp.

    Civil Action No. 12-6179 (JBC) (D.N.J. Apr. 12, 2017)

    It should be noted that the reopening of a trial in cases where the trial record appears less than complete is perfectly appropriate and within the sound discretion of the trial court. See Johnson v. Hix Wrecker Service, Inc., 528 Fed. Appx. 636 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 331-32 (1971); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(2); Nanda v. Ford Motor Co., 509 F.2d 213, 223 (7th Cir. 1974); Oak Hall Cap & Gown Co. v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., 899 F.2d 291, 295 (4th Cir. 1990)). --------

  3. Reinacher v. Alton & S. Ry. Co.

    Case No. 14-cv-01353-JPG-DGW (S.D. Ill. Nov. 21, 2016)

    Alternatively, under Rule 59(a)(2), the Court has discretion to "open the judgment if one has been entered, take additional testimony, amend findings of fact and conclusions of law or make new ones, and direct the entry of a new judgment." See e.g., Johnson v. Hix Wrecker Serv., Inc., 528 Fed. App'x 636, 639 (7th Cir. 2013). The purpose of these rules is to allow the Court an opportunity to correct its own mistakes to avoid unnecessary appellate proceedings.

  4. Wilborn v. Ealey

    No. 13-CV-70-JPG-PMF (S.D. Ill. May. 3, 2016)

    Alternatively, under Rule 59(a)(2), the Court has discretion to "open the judgment if one has been entered, take additional testimony, amend findings of fact and conclusions of law or make new ones, and direct the entry of a new judgment." See, e.g., Johnson v. Hix Wrecker Serv., Inc., 528 Fed. App'x 636, 639 (7th Cir. 2013). The purpose of these rules is to allow the Court an opportunity to correct its own mistakes to avoid unnecessary appellate proceedings.

  5. Laura v. Fuji Component Parts U.S., Inc.

    1:14-cv-00890-SEB-MJD (S.D. Ind. Feb. 2, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    However, district courts are not required to reward tactics designed to deprive the court or the factfinder of information needed to decide a claim fairly. Johnson v. Hix Wrecker Serv., Inc., 528 F. App'x 636, 639 (7th Cir. 2013). Legal Standard

  6. GSI Technology, Inc. v. United Memories Inc.

    Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2015)

    Id. See, e.g., Johnson v. Hix Wrecker Service, Inc., 528 Fed. App'x 636, 640-41 (7th Cir. 2013). See Docket No. 938 at 2.

  7. Harrison Mfg., LLC v. Bienias

    Case No. 4:11-cv-00065-TWP-WGH (S.D. Ind. Sep. 11, 2013)

    "The decision to reopen a civil bench trial to submit additional proof rests in the sound discretion of the trial court." Johnson v. Hix Wrecker Serv., Inc., No. 12-3475, 2013 WL 3366226, at *2 (7th Cir. July 3, 2013) (citing Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 331-32 (1971); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(2)). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a)(2) states that: "After a nonjury trial, the court may, on motion for a new trial, open the judgment if one has been entered, take additional testimony, amend findings of fact and conclusions of law or make new ones, and direct the entry of a new judgment."