United States Sixth Circuit

In plaintiff's negligence action against defendant-railroad company arising from a collision between plaintiff's husband's vehicle and a train owned by defendant, district court's grant of plaintiff's motion for sanctions and denial of of her post-trial motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff cannot now demand a new trial as she had ample reason and opportunity to seek corrective action in the form of a mistrial before the jury returned its verdict in favor of defendant; 2) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying post-trial discovery and an evidentiary hearing based on plaintiff's insufficient showing that defense counsel ultimately withheld material information or bribed a witness; and 3) although the district court erred in invoking Rule 11, its entry of sanctions against defense counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, 28 U.S.C. section 1927 was not an abuse of its authority.

Appellate Information

• Argued 04/30/2010
• Decided 08/24/2010
• Published 08/24/2010

Judges

• MOORE

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• John W. Chandler, Jr, Charles J. Swartwout