Cervini v. Cisneros, 1:21-cv-00565

During the 2020 U.S. presidential election, plaintiffs Davis, Gins, and Holloway, affiliated with the Biden-Harris campaign, claimed they were harassed and intimidated by a group of Trump supporters (the "Trump Train") as their campaign bus traveled between San Antonio and Austin, Texas.
Plaintiffs alleged the defendants, including Eliazar Cisneros, conspired to use force, intimidation, and threats to prevent their political advocacy, and that Cisneros in particular orchestrated recruitment and planning for "Operation Block the Bus."
Video and testimonial evidence at trial showed Cisneros participating in dangerous driving and a collision with a Biden campaign staffer’s vehicle.
Plaintiffs brought three claims: violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) (Support or Advocacy Clause of the Ku Klux Klan Act), Texas state law claim of civil conspiracy to commit assault, and civil assault (direct and aiding/abetting liability).
After a jury found Cisneros liable only under the federal conspiracy statute and awarded damages, Cisneros moved for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial, arguing insufficiency of evidence, legal inconsistencies, and entitlement to relief under various federal rules.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of Evidence for 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) Conspiracy	Plaintiffs proved a coordinated, intentional scheme by Cisneros to use force/intimidation to interfere with advocacy.	Cisneros contended there was no agreement to commit unlawful acts and insufficient proof he knowingly participated in a conspiracy.	Sufficient evidence supported conspiracy liability; motion denied.
Consistency of Jury Verdicts (finding only Cisneros liable and only under federal claim)	Federal claim requires proof of conspiracy with anyone, not necessarily co-defendants; elements differ from state law torts.	Cisneros argued federal verdict was inconsistent with state verdicts, requiring co-defendant liability or underlying tort.	No inconsistency; federal and state law have different elements.
Damages for Holloway's Emotional Distress	Holloway testified to emotional harms—anxiety, physical symptoms, professional and personal changes—stemming from the conspiracy.	Cisneros claimed no evidence he personally caused distress or that it was compensable.	Jury had sufficient basis for damages; emotional distress compensable.
Entitlement to Relief under Rules 50, 59, 60	Jury's findings and process were proper; no grounds for post-trial relief.	Cisneros claimed errors, clerical issues, or extraordinary circumstances merited relief.	No valid basis for relief; motions denied and supplement struck for untimeliness.

Orozco v. Plackis, 757 F.3d 445 (5th Cir. 2014) (standard for judgment as a matter of law—challenge to legal sufficiency of evidence)
Whitehead v. Food Max of Miss., Inc., 163 F.3d 265 (5th Cir. 1998) (new trial should only be granted if verdict is against great weight of evidence)
Seidman v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 923 F.2d 1134 (5th Cir. 1991) (standards for granting new trial: weight of evidence, damages, fairness)
Carter v. Fenner, 136 F.3d 1000 (5th Cir. 1998) (judgment only void under Rule 60(b)(4) for lack of jurisdiction or due process)
Forsyth v. City of Dallas, 91 F.3d 769 (5th Cir. 1996) (testimony regarding emotional harm can sustain compensatory damages under § 1983)