Mushrush
Mushrush v. Martel Construction, Inc.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Plaintiff Dan Mushrush appeals from the denial of his motion for a new trial following a jury trial of a negligence action under Montana law. Our jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
Mushrush fell from scaffolding and was seriously injured while working at a construction site in Bozeman, Montana. 1 *553 Mushrush, who was employed by a subcontractor, brought a diversity suit in federal district court against the general contractor, Martel Construction (“Martel”), alleging negligence under Montana law. Following a week-long trial, the jury returned a verdict for Martel. Mushrush moved for judgment as a matter of law and requested a new trial for damages.
On appeal, Mushrush argues that the district court erred in not holding a hearing to determine whether alleged misconduct by Martel entitled Mushrush to a new trial under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 or 60(b)(3). A district court’s decision on a motion to amend the judgment under Rule 59, as well as its decision to deny a motion for a new trial under Rule 60(b) are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Cashman v. City of Cotati, 374 F.3d 887, 895-96 (9th Cir.2004); United States v.…