At page 671 Grant of new trial under rule 59 and 28 U.S.C. § 12919 citing casesument were considered to be an amendment, such would be permitted. Pogue v. International Industries, Inc., 524 F.2d 342 (6th Cir.1975). 6A Moore’s Federal…
- Trovan Ltd. v. Pfizer, Inc., 23 F. App'x 671 (9th Cir. 2001).unpublishedCorp. v. Daiflon, 449 U.S. 33, 34-36 , 101 S.Ct. 188, 190-91 , 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980); Roy v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 781 F.2d 670, 671 (9th Cir.1985).
- David Schudel, & Deborah Guaragna-Williams v. Gen. Elec. Co., a Foreign Corp. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp., a Foreign Corp., David Schudel Daniel Glass Merlin E. Carlson Timothy Schudel Sandra Schudel, Husband & Wife, & the Marital Cmty. Composed Thereof Kathrene Rae Howell Craig A. Thompson John Hopkins Ruth Hopkins, Husband & Wife, & the Marital Cmty. Composed Thereof v. Gen. Elec. Co., a Foreign Corp. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp., a Foreign Corp., 120 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 1997).publishedCorp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 34 , 101 S.Ct. 188, 189-90 , 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980); Roy v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 781 F.2d 670, 671 (9th Cir.1985). 9 III.
- Schudel v. Gen. Elec. Co., 120 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 1997).publishedCorp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 34 , 101 S.Ct. 188, 189-90 , 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980); Roy v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 781 F.2d 670, 671 (9th Cir.1985). 9 III.
- Arachnid, Inc. v. Medalist Mktg. Corp., Medalist Mfg. Corp. & Lee Peppard, 972 F.2d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 1992).publishedArachnid contends that under Roy v. Volkswagen-werk Aktiengesellschaft, 781 F.2d 670, 671 (9th Cir.1985), it can raise the GVMD argument at such a late date, but we cannot read Roy as broadly as Arachnid desires.
- Murphy v. City of Long Beach, 914 F.2d 183 (9th Cir. 1990).publishedRoy v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellshaft, 781 F.2d 670, 671 (9th Cir.1985).
- Valtrol, Inc. v. Gen. Connectors Corp., 884 F.2d 149 (4th Cir. 1989).publishedSee Roy v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 781 F.2d 670, 671 (9th Cir.1985).
- Valtrol, Inc. v. Gen. Connectors Corp., 884 F.2d 149 (4th Cir. 1989).publishedSee Roy v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 781 F.2d 670, 671 (9th Cir.1985).
- Webb v. State, 977 P.2d 839 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).publishedCompare Roy v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 781 F.2d 670, 671 (9th Cir.1985) with Registration Control Sys., Inc. v. Compusystems, Inc., 922 F.2d 805, 809 (Fed.Cir.1990).
At page 670 Preserving jurisdiction for motion for new trial5 citing casesPER CURIAM: Appellees made a timely motion for new trial within ten days after the judgment under Rule 59(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The…
- Volpicelli v. LeGrand, No. 3:14-cv-00579 (D. Nev. Aug. 5, 2020).Cf. Roy v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 781 F.2d 670, 670 (9th Cir. 8 1985) (per curiam) (holding that, where a party specifies a ground for a timely motion, a 9 supplemental document filed outside the deadline can furnish the necess…
- Michael Lewis v. Cnty. of San Diego, 798 F. App'x 58 (9th Cir. 2019).unpublishedP. 6(b)(2); cf. Roy v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 781 F.2d 670, 670 (9th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (holding that, where a party specifies a ground for a timely motion, a supplemental document filed outside the deadline can furnish th…
- Morgan Distrib. Co., Inc. v. Unidynamic Corp. (Formerly Known as Umc Indus., Inc.), 868 F.2d 992 (8th Cir. 1989).publishedSee Roy v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 781 F.2d 670, 670-71 (9th Cir.1985).
- United States v. Vacante, 717 F. Supp. 2d 992 (E.D. Cal. 2010).publishedSee Intera Corp. v. Henderson, 428 F.3d 605, 613 (6th Cir.2005); see also Roy v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 781 F.2d 670, 670-71 (9th Cir.1985).
Other citing cases
- Jennifer Carter v. Josh Carter, 204 So. 3d 747 (Miss. 2016).published
- Floyd Strain v. Payette Sch. Dist. No. 371j Warren E. McCain Middle Sch. Richard Dillon, 134 F.3d 379 (9th Cir. 1998).unpublished
- Smallwood v. Dick, 761 P.2d 1212 (Idaho 1988).published
- Pate v. Seaboard R.R., 819 F.2d 1074 (3d Cir. 1987).published
- Lewis v. Seaboard R.R., 819 F.2d 1074 (11th Cir. 1987).published
v.
VOLKSWAGENWERK AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, a German Corporation, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
Appellees made a timely motion for new trial within ten days after the judgment under Rule 59(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The ground specified was the insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. Petitioners argue that that basis for the motion was not advanced with sufficient particularity. A later document, filed after the ten-day period, furnished the detailed arguments. The initial motion was adequate to preserve the jurisdiction of the district court to rule on the motion. The later document was not an amendment advancing a new ground but, rather, it was an exposition of the original ground specified. Even if the later doc[*671] ument were considered to be an amendment, such would be permitted. Pogue v. International Industries, Inc., 524 F.2d 342 (6th Cir.1975). 6A Moore’s Federal Practice 1159.09(2) at 59-204-209.
The district judge granted the motion on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, which was the ground specified in the appellees’ motion, and thus in full compliance with Rule 59(b). However, even had the ground of his order varied from that specified in appellees’ motion, Rule 59(d) specifically provides that the judge is free to grant the motion for a reason not stated in the original motion, provided he gives the parties notice and an opportunity to be heard on the matter. See 11 Wright and Miller, Practice and Procedure, Civil § 2813. The parties had an adequate opportunity to address, in briefs and at the hearing, the sufficiency of the evidence.
The district court had jurisdiction to grant the new trial under Rule 59 and that order, being an interlocutory order, is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Appellants’ petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc of the April 18, 1985 order dismissing the appeal are rejected.