Also known as: FRCP 59 · Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 · motion for new trial · motion to alter or amend judgment
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A federal rule of civil procedure that authorizes a district court to grant a new trial after a jury or nonjury trial or to alter or amend a judgment. The rule requires any motion to be filed no later than twenty-eight days after entry of judgment and supplies the procedural vehicle for addressing errors that affected the fairness or outcome of the proceeding.
Regina Robinson obtained a jury verdict against Ridgeway Partners on May 1. Ridgeway Partners faxed a Rule 59 motion on May 30, but the clerk filed it on June 1. The court denied the motion because the twenty-eight-day period had expired, forcing the firm to pursue any newly discovered evidence claim exclusively under Rule 60(b)(2).
After a nonjury trial, the court entered judgment for Roberto Reyes against Raven Logistics. Within twenty-eight days, Raven Logistics moved under Rule 52(b) to amend the findings on causation and requested that the court also reopen the record under Rule 59(a)(2) to receive additional expert testimony.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Ruby Rivera won a jury verdict against Regal Apparel. Regal Apparel timely moved for a new trial under Rule 59, arguing that the admission of certain expert animations had produced an excessive damages award. The court evaluated whether the evidentiary ruling had probably affected the verdict.
Roland Rhodes prevailed at trial against Radiance Media. After judgment, Radiance Media discovered that a juror had concealed participation in a parallel lawsuit. The company filed a timely Rule 59 motion asserting implied bias and seeking a new trial on that ground.
Robert Rivera obtained a general verdict against Ridgeway Partners. Ridgeway Partners failed to file either a Rule 50(b) renewed motion or a Rule 59 new-trial motion challenging evidentiary sufficiency. On appeal the company was barred from arguing that the evidence could not support the verdict.
Renata Russo secured a judgment against Raven Logistics. Six months later the company sought to reopen the case on grounds that could have been raised in a timely Rule 59 motion. The court held that the strict twenty-eight-day deadline and principles of finality precluded relief.
A motion for new trial must be filed no later than twenty-eight days after entry of judgment. The deadline is strict and non-extendable under Rule 6(b). Filing even one day late deprives the court of authority to grant relief under Rule 59.
Supporting sources
No. Rule 60(b)(2) expressly requires that the evidence could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b). A party that fails to meet the twenty-eight-day deadline cannot obtain relief under Rule 60(b)(2) for evidence that was discoverable earlier.
Supporting sources
After a jury trial the court may grant a new trial for any reason that would have supported such relief at common law in federal court, including a verdict against the clear weight of the evidence, juror misconduct, or irreconcilably inconsistent special findings.
Supporting sources
Yes. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4), a timely motion under Rule 59 tolls the appeal period until the district court disposes of the motion.
Supporting sources
…opinion, Nov. 28, 1956. The full faith and credit question was first raised in the Delaware litigation by an unsuccessful motion for new trial filed with the Chancellor Jan. 20, 1956. After the Florida Supreme Court decision the matter was renewed by a motion to remand filed with the Delaware Supreme Court. In a decision of Jan.…