Adolph A. Lurie v. Caesars Tahoe Inc. Caesars Palace Corp., Dba Caesars Palace at Sea Caesars World Inc., Dba Caesars Palace at Sea

76 F.3d 387 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Adolph A. LURIE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CAESARS TAHOE INC.; Caesars Palace Corp., dba Caesars Palace at Sea; Caesars World Inc., dba Caesars Palace at Sea, Defendants-Appellees. No. 95-15466. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Jan. 23, 1996. * Decided Jan. 25, 1996. Before: ALARCON, HALL, and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Adolph A. Lurie appeals pro se the district court's grant of judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50 for defendants Caesars Tahoe, Inc., Caesers Palace Corp. and Caesers World Inc. ("Caesers"), in Lurie's claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 623 (a)(1) ("ADEA"). Lurie also appeals the district court's denial of his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(a) motion for a new trial. We review the denial of a Rule 59(a) motion for abuse of discretion, Ruvalcaba v. City of Los Angeles, 64 F.3d 1323, 1325 (9th Cir.1995), and the grant of…