Luo v. AIK Renovation Inc.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:23-cv-05878
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Luo v. AIK Renovation Inc., Judge Liman denied Luo’s request for a new trial, finding no sufficient error in the jury verdict or trial proceedings.
Shixuan Luo’s request for a new trial was denied, leaving the jury’s verdict in favor of AIK Renovation Inc., Steve Nejasmic, and Michael Renosis undisturbed.
What happened
In Luo v. AIK Renovation Inc., Shixuan Luo asked for a new trial after the jury found for AIK Renovation Inc., Steve Nejasmic, and Michael Renosis. Luo had argued that he was fired because of his race or national origin and challenged the trial’s handling of his claims.
Luo argued that the verdict was against the evidence, that Nejasmic had given inconsistent explanations for the firing, and that the jury instructions were incorrect. He also challenged the dismissal of his unpaid-salary claim, limits on the time for presenting his case, and statements by the defense attorney during opening arguments.
Judge Lewis J. Liman denied the motion. The judge ruled that the evidence supported the jury’s decision, the challenged jury instructions correctly stated the law, Luo had not preserved his objections to those instructions, and the other alleged errors did not justify a new trial.
The detailed version
- Luo v. AIK Renovation Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-05878
- Lewis Liman
- Apr. 14, 2025
Background
Shixuan Luo moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) for a new trial against AIK Renovation Inc., Steve Nejasmic, and Michael Renosis. At trial, Luo argued that he had been fired because of his race or national origin. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants.
Arguments and analysis
Luo argued that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence because Nejasmic had given different explanations for the termination before and during trial. The court acknowledged that the jury could have viewed those differences as evidence that the defendants’ explanations were false. But the jury was not required to draw that inference. The court found that Luo offered little affirmative evidence of discrimination and that a reasonable jury could credit Nejasmic’s trial testimony that the termination was based on a workplace safety issue and performance problems.
Luo also argued that the jury instructions did not adequately explain pretext or the possibility that discrimination and a lawful reason could both motivate the termination. The court held that Luo had not raised these objections before the jury retired, so the objections were not preserved. The court further held that the instructions nevertheless correctly told the jury that it could infer discrimination from false or incomplete explanations, and that Luo could prevail if race or national origin was a motivating factor even if lawful reasons also motivated the termination.
The court rejected Luo’s other alleged errors as well. At the close of Luo’s case, the court had granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss his New York Labor Law claims concerning unpaid wages for his final week of employment because Luo had not provided evidence of the hours worked, leaving the jury unable to calculate damages. The court also concluded that the time limits imposed on Luo’s presentation and the defense attorney’s opening statement about Luo’s account did not justify a new trial. The court explained that a new trial requires a seriously erroneous verdict, a miscarriage of justice, or prejudicial legal error, and that the alleged errors did not meet that standard.
Disposition
Judge Lewis J. Liman denied Luo’s motion for a new trial. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close Docket No. 72, and the defense verdict was not disturbed.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.