Jon MUSIAL, a single man, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TELESTEPS, INC., a New York corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Decided: February 12, 2020
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Leonard Wayne Aragon, Esquire, Attorney, Robert B. Carey, Esquire, Attorney, John Michael DeStefano, III, Esquire, Attorney, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP, Phoenix, AZ, Charles P. Franklin, Esquire, Attorney, Franklin & Associates PA, Tempe, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellant Rina Rai, Rai & Barone, P.C., Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees
Following a jury verdict for Defendants, Plaintiff Jon Musial timely appeals. He seeks a new trial, challenging six evidentiary rulings. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 1030 (9th Cir. 2008), we affirm.
The district court’s disputed evidentiary rulings were not an abuse of discretion. Although another court could have ruled differently, the district court’s rulings were not “illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences that may be drawn from facts in the record.” United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1251 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Furthermore, any potential error in the district court’s rulings did not prejudice Plaintiff to the degree necessary to mandate reversal or a new trial. See Harper, 533 F.3d at 1030 (holding that reversal on account of an evidentiary ruling requires a conclusion that, “more probably than not, the lower court’s error tainted the verdict” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.