Jon Musial v. Telesteps, Inc.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
FEB 12 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JON MUSIAL, a single man, No. 18-16867
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01999-JJT
v.
MEMORANDUM*
TELESTEPS, INC., a New York
corporation; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
John Joseph Tuchi, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 6, 2020
Phoenix, Arizona
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
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.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
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)).
AFFIRMED.
2