Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Mushrush v. Martel Construction, Inc.
Citation: 235 F. App'x 552Docket: No. 06-35048
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; August 15, 2007; Federal Appellate Court
Dan Mushrush appeals the denial of his motion for a new trial after a jury found in favor of Martel Construction in a negligence suit following Mushrush's fall from scaffolding at a construction site in Bozeman, Montana. Mushrush, employed by a subcontractor, filed the suit in federal court, claiming Martel's negligence. After a week-long trial, the jury ruled against him. Mushrush sought judgment as a matter of law and a new trial, arguing that the district court failed to hold a hearing on alleged misconduct by Martel, which he claimed warranted a new trial under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60(b)(3). The appellate court reviews denials of such motions for abuse of discretion. Mushrush raised four issues related to discovery misconduct, including Martel's failure to disclose its safety director and reliance on an undisclosed expert. However, these claims were not presented in the district court and thus were not preserved for appeal. Additionally, Mushrush contended that late disclosure of safety manuals hindered his case and that Martel improperly cross-examined a witness regarding his salary, which Martel had previously admitted. The district court deemed these matters minor and concluded they did not significantly impact the trial. The appellate court agreed with the district court's assessment, finding that Mushrush did not demonstrate how the alleged issues prejudiced his case or how a hearing would have been beneficial. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, stating the disposition is not suitable for publication and does not serve as precedent, as the parties are already familiar with the case's factual and procedural background.