Mark Wayman, dba Able Towing v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 11a0772n.06
No. 09-6222
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
MARK WAYMAN, dba Able Towing;
CITY TOWING & TRANSPORTATION,
INC.; MIKE MYERS, Individually,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF
NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY,
TENNESSEE,
Defendant-Appellee.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF
TENNESSEE
Before: MERRITT, BOGGS, and CLAY, Circuit Judges.
MERRITT, Circuit Judge. Mark Wayman, dba Able Towing, City Towing &
Transportation, Inc., and City Towing’s owner, Mike Myers, appeal a district court order denying
their motion for a new trial.
Plaintiffs filed suit against the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County,
Tennessee, claiming that the Transportation Licensing Commission, a department of the
Metropolitan Government, violated their equal protection rights by imposing harsher penalties on
them than it imposed on other towing companies who had similarly violated applicable towing
ordinances. The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict for the Metropolitan
Government. Plaintiffs thereafter filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that the jury verdict was
against the weight of the evidence. The district court denied the motion, and this appeal followed.
The denial of a motion for a new trial is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Michigan First
Credit Union v. Cumis Ins. Soc’y, Inc., 641 F.3d 240, 245 (6th Cir. 2011). This review must, in turn,

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 09-6222
- 2 -
consider the standard that governed the district court’s own consideration of the motion. In this case,
the district court correctly applied the “clearly erroneous” standard of review, and reasoned that
plaintiffs had failed to meet the heavy burden of showing that the jury’s verdict was against the
weight of the evidence and had resulted in a miscarriage of justice. (Order Denying Plaintiffs’
Motion for a New Trial at 1.) We agree.
In order to establish their claim of disparate treatment at trial, Plaintiffs had to prove that they
were “intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis
for the difference in treatment.” Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000).
Examining the verdict in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, see Williams v. Nashville
Network, 132 F.3d 1123, 1131 (6th Cir. 1997), Plaintiffs failed to present evidence that other towing
companies were similarly situated. Rather, the record reflects that Plaintiffs’ violations were different
both in number and context from those of other towing operators. A reasonable juror could have
therefore concluded that Plaintiffs failed to establish their case, precluding the grant of a new trial.
See Tisdale v. Fed. Exp. Corp., 415 F.3d 516, 528-29 (6th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, the district
court’s order is affirmed.

-- 2 of 2 --