Fill and Sign the Effective Post Trial Motion Practice Preserving Issues and Form

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI , PlaintiffVS.Cause No. , Defendant AMENDED RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FORJ.N.O.V. OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL COMES NOW , Defendant in this cause, and responds to Plaintiff's Motion for J.N.O.V. or a New Trial as follows:1. Plaintiff has contended that he/she is entitled to a new trial based upon the fact that responses to Request for Admission indicated that teeth were extracted on , 20 , and that contrary testimony was allowed to be offered at trial. Plaintiff also contends that the testimony of , a defense expert, was contrary to his/her deposition testimony as far as the date of the extraction.2. Plaintiff had great opportunity to cross-examine both and at trial on these inconsistencies, and the jury was certainly made aware that there had allegedly been prior statements by both these witnesses that the extractions took place on , 20 .3. , a defense expert, testified that, even had the extractions taken place on , rather than as the Plaintiff now contends, would still have conformed to the applicable standard of care. Therefore, any error regarding the timing of the extractions is harmless, as 's testimony created a question of fact for the jury as to whether, even if the extraction had taken place on , had conformed to the standard of care.4. Plaintiff has also misconstrued the testimony of Plaintiff's expert. testified that an infected tooth could be pulled and that it was within the standard of care to pull an infected tooth. His/Her criticism of pulling tooth was based upon testimony that his/her neck and jaw were greatly swollen. testified that it would be below the standard of care to pull a tooth if that situation were present. He/She did not testify that four days of antibiotics would be insufficient to cover a patient for an extraction.5. That in his/her own testimony clearly stated that his/her dentures were placed in his/her mouth immediately after the extraction, and the record clearly shows the date upon which the dentures were placed. 6.That Plaintiff has also contended that he/she is entitled to a new trial and that the jury was allowed to continue deliberating until almost midnight on , .7. Neither Plaintiff nor Plaintiff's counsel made any objection to allowing the jury to deliberate on evening and have, therefore, waived any such objection.8. Further, Plaintiff's counsel had represented to the court that the Plaintiff would rest their case after one day of trial. Instead, Plaintiff rested at approximately : a.m./p.m. on the second day of trial. Therefore, it is Plaintiff's own miscalculation as to the time to be taken for a trial that resulted in submission of the case to the jury on evening.9.Further, the fact that the jury deliberated for over hours indicates that they certainly did take their duty seriously and were not unconcerned about the case.WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, , respectfully requests this Court to deny Plaintiff's Motion for J.N.O.V. or, in the Alternative, for a New Trial. Respectfully submitted,_______________________________________ Attorney for Of counsel: Telephone: MSB # Attorney for CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, attorney for Defendant, , hereby certify that I have this day hand delivered true and correct copies of the above and foregoing document to This the day of , 20 . __________________________________