Fioto v. Manhattan Woods Golf Enterprises, LLC
304 F. Supp. 2d 541, 2004 WL 239719, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1791 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A new trial will not be granted to allow a party to present evidence that was readily available, but not offered, at the original trial, as a new trial is not a mechanism to cure a failure of proof resulting from a party's own litigation choices.
Facts:
- Fioto was employed as a sales manager at Manhattan Woods Golf Club.
- Fioto's mother was dying and required emergency brain surgery.
- Fioto took a day off from work to be present at the hospital while his mother underwent the surgery.
- Manhattan Woods terminated Fioto's employment shortly after this absence.
- The parties had an employment agreement that governed the terms of Fioto's employment.
Procedural Posture:
- Fioto sued Manhattan Woods Golf Enterprises in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and breach of contract.
- After a trial, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Fioto on both claims, awarding $126,825 for the FMLA violation and $74,375 for the breach of contract.
- Defendants filed a post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b).
- The district court granted the defendants' JMOL motion on the FMLA claim, nullifying that verdict, but denied the motion as to the breach of contract claim.
- Fioto, the plaintiff against whom JMOL was entered on the FMLA claim, subsequently moved for a new trial on that claim and on the damages portion of the contract claim.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a party entitled to a new trial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 to cure a complete failure of proof on an essential element of a claim when the curative evidence was available at the original trial?
Opinions:
Majority - McMahon, District Judge
No, a party is not entitled to a new trial to cure a failure of proof with evidence that was available at the original trial. The purpose of a new trial is not to give a litigant a 'practice trial' or a second opportunity to present evidence they failed to introduce the first time. The court reasoned that while it has discretion to grant a new trial where justice would be served, Second Circuit precedent requires a party seeking to reopen proof to show the evidence was not available, or could not have been available with reasonable diligence, at the original trial. Fioto's proposed new testimony from himself and his father about providing comfort and helping with medical decisions was readily available and could have been presented. Granting a new trial in this situation would undermine judicial economy and reward a litigant for failing to present their complete case. The court also denied a new trial on contract damages, finding the jury's award was not so erroneous as to shock the conscience, and held that any inconsistency with the now-vacated FMLA damages award was irrelevant.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle of finality in litigation and clarifies that Federal Rule 59 is not a vehicle for correcting strategic errors or evidentiary omissions. It establishes a high bar for obtaining a new trial, requiring a showing that the evidence was genuinely undiscoverable, not merely overlooked. The ruling distinguishes between remedying a technical defect and allowing a party a 'second bite at the apple' after a complete failure of proof on a substantive element of a claim. This precedent instructs litigants to present all available and necessary evidence during the initial trial, as post-verdict motions will not serve as a safety net for correctable trial oversights.
