a jury should only consider evidence of the reprehensibility of a defendant’s conduct in the separate proceeding on the punitive damages amount. Here, evidence of allegedly reprehensible conduct was properly admitted for the jury to consider in deciding whether to award punitive damages. c. Admissibility under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(b)(l) The FDCPA provides: In determining the amount of liability in any action under subsection (a) of this section [regarding statutory damages], the court shall consider, among other relevant factors— (I) in any individual action under subsection (a)(2)(A), the frequency and persistence of noncompliance by the debt collector, the nature of such noncompliance, and the extent to which such noncompliance was intentional.... 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(b)(l)(emphasis 2004) (<HOLDING>); American Nat. Fire Ins. Co. v. Mirasco, 2004
holding that rule 59 motions are not granted where they are used by a losing party to request the trial judge to reopen proceeding in order to consider a new defensive theory which could have been raised during the original proceedings holding that the movant was not entitled to new trial under rule 59 based on a defense which if properly placed in issue would have affected the course of the jury trial holding new trial should not have been granted because jury was properly instructed holding that trial judge should have granted new trial rather than judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the judge could not know in what order the jury reached its inconsistent verdicts holding that rule 59 motion for new trial was procedurally allowable even in case where no trial had yet been held