Opinion
Case No. 6:09-cv-591-Orl-28DAB.
September 8, 2011
ORDER
A jury trial in this case was held in March 2011, at the conclusion of which the jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff. This case is now before the Court on Defendant's Motion for New Trial (Doc. 87) and Plaintiff's Response (Doc. 89) thereto.
Defendant asserts that a new trial should be granted because "the jury's verdict in this case [was] contrary to the greater weight of the evidence." (Doc. 87 at 11). When determining whether to grant a new trial on this basis, a judge may "`not simply substitute his judgment for that of the jury,'" and "`new trials should not be granted on evidentiary grounds unless, at a minimum, the verdict is against the great-not merely the greater-weight of the evidence.'" Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Valente, 933 F.2d 921, 923 (11th Cir. 1991) (quoting Hewitt v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 732 F.2d 1554, 1556 (11th Cir. 1984)).
In support of its motion for a new trial, Defendant raises the exact same arguments it made in its motion for judgment as a matter of law. (Compare Doc. 73 with Doc. 87). As noted in the Court's Order denying that motion, "there was a reasonable basis upon which the jury based its verdict." (Doc. 76 at 4). Accordingly, the verdict was not "against the clear weight of the evidence," Hewitt, 732 F.2d at 1556, and Defendant's motion for a new trial must be denied.
Defendants made an ore tenus motion for judgment as a matter of law, (see Doc. 60), and the parties were given opportunities to file written arguments, (see Docs. 65, 73, 75).
In accordance with the foregoing, it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for New Trial (Doc. 87) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Orlando, Florida.