Innes

Innes v. Maritime Overseas Corp.

Good Law
33 F. App'x 282
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 20, 2002No. 00-57189; D.C. No. CV-98-00444-NAJCalifornia760 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Keith Anthony Innes (“Innes”) brought an action against Maritime Overseas Cor *283 poration (“MOC”) alleging unseaworthiness and negligence under the Jones Act. Following a jury trial, a $482,000 judgment was awarded to Innes. MOC appeals this judgment. Because the facts are familiar to the parties, we recount them only as necessary to explain our decision.

MOC contends that the district court erred in denying its Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and its Motion for a New Trial. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm. We review de novo the district court’s decision to deny MOC’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. See Johnson v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 251 F.3d 1222, 1226 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 645 , 151 L.Ed.2d 563 (2001). We review a district court’s ruling on a motion for new trial for an abuse of discretion. See Silver Sage Partners Ltd. v. City of Desert Hot Springs, 251 F.3d 814, 818 (9th Cir.2001).

Under Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, judgment as a matter of law is proper if the evidence, construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, permits only one…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.