Prato et al v. Hacienda Del Mar, LLC, No. 2:2008cv00883 - Document 155 (M.D. Fla. 2011)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 137 Motion for judgment as a Matter of Law and Motion for new trial; granting 140 Motion for turnover and firm shall immediately turn over the funds in escrow to counsel for defendant; denying as moot 142 Motion to sta y execution of judgment.. The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to Robert C. Benedict, Esq., care of Berntsson, Ittersagen, Gunderson, Waksler & Wideikis, LLP, at 1861 Placida Road, Suite 204 Englewood, Florida 34223. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 7/14/2011. (RKR)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION GARY PRATO; JOANNE C. MCMURRAY, Plaintiffs, vs. Case No. HACIENDA DEL MAR, LLC a Limited Liability Company, 2:08-cv-883-FtM-29SPC Florida Defendant. ___________________________________ OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Motion for New Trial (Doc. #137), defendant s Renewed Motion for Turnover (Doc. #140), and Plaintiff s Motion to Stay Execution of Judgment in a Civil Case (Doc. #142). Responses were filed (Docs. #146, 151). The motions are resolved as set forth below. I. A Rule 50 judgment as a matter of law is appropriate when there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for the non-moving party. Optimum Techs., Inc. v. Henkel Consumer Adhesives, Inc., 496 F.3d 1231, 1251 (11th Cir. 2007). [I]n deciding on a Rule 50 motion a district court s proper analysis is squarely and narrowly focused on the sufficiency of evidence. Chaney v. City of Orlando, 483 F.3d 1221, 1227 (11th Cir. 2007). As such, [t]he jury s findings should be excluded from the decision-making calculus on a Rule 50(b) motion, other than to ask whether there was sufficient evidence, as a legal matter, from which a reasonable jury could find for the party who prevailed at trial. Id. at 1228. The Court looks at the record evidence drawing all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Nurse Be v. Columbia Palms W. Hosp. L.P., 490 F.3d 1302, 1308 (11th Cir. 2007). A jury verdict must be left intact if there is evidence from which the decision maker . . . reasonably could have resolved the matter the way it did. Rodriguez v. Farm Stores Grocery, Inc., 518 F.3d 1259, 1264 (11th Cir. 2008). Even if the evidence would have supported a verdict for the losing party, [t]he issue is not whether the evidence was sufficient for [the losing party] to have won, but whether the evidence was sufficient for it to have lost. Id. at 1264-65. Plaintiffs had the burden of establishing their claims. jury found plaintiffs had not done so. The Applying the standards set forth above, the Court finds that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury s determinations. Accordingly, plaintiff s motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b) is denied. II. A Rule 59 motion for a new trial may be granted for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an action at law in federal 59(a)(1)(A). court; . . . Fed. R. Civ. P. Such reasons include a verdict which is against the weight of the evidence, substantial errors in the admission or -2- rejection of evidence, Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Duncan, 311 U.S. 243, 251 (1940), and improper opening statements or closing arguments, Christopher v. Florida, 449 F.3d 1360, 1365-66 (11th Cir. 2006). Resolution of a motion for a new trial is committed to the discretion of the trial court. Montgomery v. Noga, 168 F.3d 1282, 1295 (11th Cir. 1999). Plaintiffs argue they are entitled to a new trial because the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict, or the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence. A district court should grant a motion for new trial when the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence or will result in a miscarriage of justice, even though there may be substantial evidence which would prevent the direction of a verdict. . . . Because it is critical that a judge does not merely substitute his judgment for that of the jury, new trials should not be granted on evidentiary grounds unless, at a minimum, the verdict is against the great -- not merely the greater -- Steakhouse weight of of Brandon, the evidence. Inc., 267 Lipphardt F.3d 1183, 1186 2001)(internal quotations and citation omitted). v. Durango (11th Cir. The Court finds that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdicts and that the verdicts were not against the clear weight of the evidence and will not result in a miscarriage of justice. Even if the Court weighs the evidence, Watts v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 842 F.2d 307, 310 (11th Cir. 1988), the Court concludes that the -3- evidence is sufficient to support the verdicts and the verdicts are not against the great weight of the evidence. The undersigned presided over the trial and is satisfied the jury s verdicts were not the result of confusion or misunderstanding. Accordingly, plaintiff s motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 59 is denied. III. Having resolved the pending post-trial motions relating to the merits of the case, the Court finds that the Renewed Motion for Turnover (Doc. #140) is due to be granted. A copy of this Order will be provided to the firm holding funds in escrow. The Court also finds that plaintiffs Motion to Stay Execution of Judgment (Doc. #142) is due to be denied as moot. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. Plaintiffs Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Motion for New Trial (Doc. #137) is DENIED. 2. Defendant s Renewed Motion for Turnover (Doc. #140) is GRANTED. Berntsson, Ittersagen, Gunderson, Waksler & Wideikis, LLP shall immediately turn over the funds it is holding in escrow in this case to counsel for defendant. this Order to Robert C. The Clerk shall send a copy of Benedict, Esq., care of Berntsson, Ittersagen, Gunderson, Waksler & Wideikis, LLP, at 1861 Placida Road, Suite 204 Englewood, Florida 34223. -4- 3. Plaintiff s Motion to Stay Execution of Judgment in a Civil Case (Doc. #142) is DENIED as moot. DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this July, 2011. Copies: Counsel of record -5- 14th day of
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
