First v. Rolling Plains Implement Co., a fraud claim about the sale of a combine, found insufficient evidence to support the verdict about the date of claim accrual (“April 13, 2017”), noting the following:

• Evidence about time, but not dates. “[T]here is a disconnect between the trial evidence and the jury charge. Statutes of limitation are necessarily date-specific, but the trial evidence spoke in general terms. Witnesses referred to holiday weekends, seasons, and months when describing the malfunctions, but the jury was tasked with identifying a specific date that began the limitations period. The jury was asked to select a specific date without the evidentiary basis to do so.”
• Only date, no evidence. The jury chose the only date presented as a day, month, and year: the Protection Plan’s expiration date. But the Protection Plan’s expiration date cannot support the verdict because it is temporally unrelated to any pertinent fact that would cause First to suspect fraud. …  Trial witnesses testified that the main issue [around Memorial Day 2016]—computer problems that caused the engine to idle—was part-and-parcel of setting up the Combine.”
• Only date, no evidence, another reason. “[T]he jury’s selected date—April 13, 2017—occurred almost one year after the Memorial Day 2016 malfunctions. Rolling Plains did not identify additional events during this year that would cause First to suspect fraud.”

No. 23-10635 (July 11, 2024).

To the right is a painting of Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon. A river-crossing issue also arose in Good River Farms, L.P. v. TXI Operations, L.P. A severe flood on the Colorado River breached a water reservoir on a commercial property, which in turn led to the flooding of a neighboring farm.

Liability under the Texas Water Code turned on whether “surface waters” (the water in the reservoir) caused the problem at the farm, or whether it was water from the Colorado River (not considered “surface water” under the Code, because the river is a “bed or channel in which water is accustomed to flow”).

The Fifth Circuit found sufficient evidence to support a judgment for the farm, reasoning that “[t]he jury apparently concluded that the water was not overflow fromthe river, but surface water accumulated in such quantity that it ran contrary to the riverine flow.” No. 23-50330 (April 25, 2024).

A propane grill exploded; the injured plaintiff won a judgment against the supplier of the propane tank, and the Fifth Circuit reversed in Johnston v. Ferrellgas, Inc.:

[T]he circumstantial evidence on which the Johnstons rely does not cure the want of proof that the tank was defective when it left Ferrellgas’s possession. This is not a res ipsa case. Indeed, the Johnstons did not advance that theory of liability before the district court or before us. In sum, the Plaintiff’s expert admitted that he could not say the tank was defective at the time it left Ferrellgas, making his prior comments about the tank’s condition at that time pure speculation; the tank functioned properly before Johnston used it; the tank and seal are not sealed containers; and both parties agree Ferrellgas successfully refilled the tank with gas under highpressure months before the accident. There is no reasonable basis on which the jury could find the Johnstons met their burden.

No. 23-10019 (March 21, 2024). A dissent saw matters differently.

In an instructive review of a products-liability judgment based on expert testimony and a hotly disputed jury instruction, the Fifth Circuit affirmed in Kim v. American Honda Motor Co.:

Honda attempts to escape this jury verdict by arguing the district court erred in three ways: by admitting Plaintiffs’ experts, denying its JMOL motion, and denying its proposed instruction about the nonliability presumption. But it is incorrect on all fronts. The Plaintiffs’ experts based their opinions on reliable methodologies and provided relevant, helpful testimony. As such, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find Honda liable for the Kims’ injuries. The district court’s application of the Texas statutory presumption of nonliability was also faithful to the statutory text, the precedent of Texas, and the precedent of this Court.

No. 22-40790 (Nov. 7, 2023).

The quesions in Louisiana Newpack Shrimp Co. v. Longhai Indigo Seafood Partners, Inc. was whether Louisiana Newpack (an importer and seller of seafood) owed $995,188.03 to Longhai (a crabmeat exporter) for three orders of crabmeat.

A properly-instructed jury found that the parties did not have a contract, but did have an enforceable “open account” as recognized by Louisiana law. The district court entered judgent for Longhai, but then amended the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 to award it nothing.

The Fifth Circuit reversed, noting that Rule 59(e) requires the movant to “clearly establish … a manifest error of law or fact.’ Noting “conflicting case law” in Louisiana on the question whether an open-account claim requires the existence of a contract, the Fifth Circuit held “that it was not a manifest error of law to allow Lonhai to recover on its open account claim.” No. 22-30653 (Aug. 17, 2023, unpublished) (emphasis in original).

Longrunning litigation between the Allen Stanford receiver and a substantial Stanford investor came to an end in Janvey v. GMAG LLC, with the conclusion that the investor’s setoff defense had been forfeited.

The Fifth Circuit considered, but did not rule on, an argument based on the pretrial order. Reminding that “[a] pretrial order supersedes all pleadings,” the Fifth Circuit noted precedent that “even issues of law should be included in the pretrial order or else they are waived.” It was reluctant to apply that precedent here, however, when a joint stipulation said only that setoff would not be argued “during the trial of this matter.” The investor contended that setof was a legal matter that only became relevant after verdict.

But, held the Court, forfeiture occurred when the investor did not raise setoff in opposition to the receiver’s motion for entry of final judgment. No. 22-10235 (May 30, 2023).

Beatriz Ball, L.L.C. v. Barballago Co., No. 21-30029 (July 12, 2022), a trade-dress case under the Lanham Act, produced a thorough concurrence by soon-to-depart Judge Costa about the distinctions between review of bench trials, and review of jury verdicts. He began by observing:

“I write separately to remark on how our remand of the trade dress claim reveals a paradox that has perplexed me about bench trials: We give a trial judge’s detailed and intensive factfinding less deference than a jury’s unexplained verdict.

If a jury had rejected Beatriz Ball’s trade dress claim—giving no more  explanation than a simple ‘No’ on the verdict form—we would presumably affirm. After all, we do not hold that Beatriz Ball is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on this claim. Instead, we remand for the district court to reassess the trade dress claim because of some errors in its 33 pages explaining why it found no protectable trade dress.”

And he concluded after a review of history and social-science research: “It turns out, then, that there is good reason for the seeming anomaly of giving less deference to bench trials: Larger and more representative groups are the ones more likely to reach the correct outcome.”

In its analysis, the concurrence notes one commentator’s observation that “while the Seventh Amendment does not compel the backwards-seeming rule giving less deference to judges’ findings, it does explain it. ‘[O]ur traditional and constitutionalized reverence for jury trial’ is why we trust juries more.” An element of that “traditional reverence” may well include some indifference to whether a jury in fact reaches a “correct” result, as the mere existence of a jury has a powerful symbolic value in its own right. See generally Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 90 (1986) (“In view of the heterogeneous population of our Nation, public respect for our criminal justice system and the rule of law will be strengthened if we ensure that no citizen is disqualified from jury service because of his race.”).

“Hughes asserts there was insufficient evidence to establish that Pearcy had any trade secrets or that Hughes and Performance Probiotics improperly used any of Pearcy’s trade secrets. But Hughes did not raise these challenges in her oral [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 50(a) motion at trial. Instead, Hughes ‘move[d] for [a] directed verdict on the misappropriation of trade secrets [claim] on the ground[ ] that there [was] no evidence of an appropriate measure of damages for that cause of action,’ an argument she renewed in her Rule 50(b) motion and likewise urges here. Because Hughes did not challenge the existence of a trade secret or improper use in her initial Rule 50(a) motion, those issues were not properly raised in her post-trial Rule 50(b) motion. We therefore decline to address them on appeal.”

Thomas v. Hughes, No. 20-50671 (March 3, 2022).

One issue in Hess Corp. v. Schlumberger Tech. Corp., a UCC case about the oil-and-gas industry, was whether the district court made clearly erroneous fact findings about a party’s compliance with a contract provision; specifically, whether “the difference between the Greene Tweed drawings and the 2004 validated valve was ‘insubstantial.'” The Fifth Circuit approached the issue in three steps:

1. Relevant Supreme Court precedent: “The Supreme Court has explained how to apply a clear-error standard to a district court’s credibility findings at a bench trial. The Anderson Court cautioned that a trial court could not ‘insulate [its] findings from review by denominating them credibility determinations’ and outlined certain ‘factors’ for consideration that could show error. Namely, ‘[d]ocuments or objective evidence may contradict the witness’ story; or the story itself may be so internally inconsistent or implausible on its face that a reasonable factfinder would not credit it.’ If ‘such factors are present, the court of appeals may well find clear error even in a finding purportedly based on a credibility determination.’” (citations omitted).
2. Relevant Circuit precedent: “We applied Anderson in an appeal involving a fatal maritime collision between a tug and a shrimper; the district court had considered physical evidence, expert testimony analyzing the physical evidence, and independent witness testimony. The district court determined that the tug was at fault. We considered the ‘plausibility and internal consistency” of the shrimper’s account, in addition to the actual evidence. Id. We found that ‘physical evidence strongly support[ed]’ the tug’s case; the tug’s expert witness was far more qualified than the shrimper’s expert and considered more information in making his assessment; the independent witness testimony was ‘inconsistent with the [shrimper’s] account of the collision’; and the shrimper’s account smacked of ‘sheer implausibility.’ Accordingly, we were left with the ‘definite and firm conviction” that the evidence showed clear error by the district court.'” (citation omitted, applying In re Luhr Bros., 157 F.3d 333 (5th Cir. 1998)).
3. Conclusion. “The drawings for the seal did not change from 2003 to 2014, and Schlumberger presented some evidence showing a series of springs from 2005 to 2015 that were manufactured within the tolerances specified in the drawings. Although it is clear that Greene Tweed produced springs that were outside the tolerances dictated by the drawings and thus did not conform, it is certainly not “implausible” that Greene Tweed manufactured its valves “to the qualified drawings” under the design-requirement-only interpretation of Section 6.3.2.2 adopted by the district court.”

No. 20-20663 (Feb. 7, 2022).

While specifically addressing a novel Hague Convention child-custody issue, Harm v. Lake-Harm provides a useful general illustration of clear-error review: “There is evidence that SLH might have established a habitual residence in Ireland. As noted above, the family discussed and took steps toward setting up a ‘home base’ in Ireland to provide more opportunities to SLH. … It is equally plausible, however, as the trial court concluded, that SLH’s presence in Ireland was transitory. Ms. Lake-Harm’s career as a
professional musician sent mother and daughter on a dogged schedule of
travel outside Ireland. … We hold that the district court’s determinations are plausible in light of the record as a whole.” No. 20-30488 (Oct. 21, 2021).

While written in a criminal appeal, Judge Oldham’s recent concurrence about specificity in error preservation is of broad general interest; he concludes:

“[A] general declaration of ‘insufficient evidence!’ is not a meaningful objection. It challenges no particular legal error. It identifies no particular factual deficiency. It does nothing to focus the district judge’s mind on anything. It’s the litigator’s equivalent of freeing the beagles in a field that might contain truffles. Cf. del Carpio Frescas, 932 F.3d at 331 (“Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in the record.” (quotation omitted)). Rather, if the defendant wants to preserve an insufficient-evidence challenge for de novo review, he must make a proper motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 and ‘specify at trial the particular basis on which acquittal is sought so that the Government and district court are provided notice.'”

United States v. Kieffer, No. 19-30225-CR (March 19, 2021). Notes: (1) A big 600Camp thanks to Jeff Levinger for drawing my attention to this case, and (2) Judge Oldham correctly notes that beagles are superior to pigs for finding truffles, as pigs tend to eat the valuable truffles after locating them.

Echeverry v. Jazz Casino Co., LLC, No. 20-30038 (Jan.11, 2021), discussed yesterday, also reviewed the admissibility of four pieces of evidence in a personal-injury trial. The issue was the liability of the LLC that owns Harrah’s Casino in New Orleans for hiring a wildlife-removal contractor to work on its exterior landscaping (“AWR”). The Fifth Circuit found no abuse of discretion by the trial court in admitting them:

• The contractor’s “F” rating with the Better Business Bureau. “[T]he BBB evidence is not very probative of the safety and competency of AWR. Still, as we earlier discussed, it might have been properly used by jurors as evidence of the Casino’s failure to investigate AWR adequately. … The evidence of the BBB rating at least added to the jurors’ understanding that the Casino missed another of the markers that could have led to further inquiry, even if the inquiry would not have led to much of significance.”
• The contractor’s certificate of insurance. “The Casino relies on Federal Rule of Evidence 411, which makes inadmissible the existence or nonexistence of insurance for purposes of proving or disproving a party’s negligence. … Here, AWR’s lack of insurance was not admitted on the issue of AWR’s negligence but to prove the Casino’s negligence in hiring AWR. Rule 411 was not violated.”
• The Casino’s internal policies. “While [an earlier unpublished case] held that internal policies did not establish the applicable standard of care, that panel did not go so far as to say that evidence that a principal violated its internal policies is irrelevant to the question of negligence. We conclude that failure to follow internal policies can be relevant. The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the evidence.” (citation omitted).
• Construction-site photos. “The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the evidence of construction sites. [Plainitff] sought to use the evidence of construction sites that had barricades to show that there should have been barricades in place to prevent her injury. The fact that the bird-removal site did not have barricades when similar construction sites did is some evidence
  of a breach of the applicable standard of care, especially when the Casino’s expert made the comparison to construction sites.”

Echeverry v. Jazz Casino Co. illustrates a deferential review of a jury’s work in a case about a property owner’s control of construction work that caused injury. Procedurally, the case reminds that federal court does not strictly follow Texas’s Casteel approach to sufficiency review of multiple-theory cases: “This court employs a harmless-error ‘gloss,’ meaning that if we are ‘totally satisfied’ or ‘reasonably certain’ based on the focus of the evidence at trial that the jury’s verdict was not based on the theory with insufficient evidence, a new trial is unnecessary.” Substantively, the Court found sufficient evidence supported the verdict on each of the plaintiff’s three “theories of negligent hiring, operational control, and authorization of unsafe work practices.” No. 20-30038 (Jan. 11, 2021).

Certain motions toll the deadline for filing a notice of appeal — but not multiple times: “Here, the Employees filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law and, alternatively, a new trial, on March 12, 2019. The district court entered final judgment on March 27 without expressly addressing that motion, thus implicitly denying it. On April 10, the Employees refiled the motion. The refiled version was identical to the March 12 version that the judgment implicitly denied. It therefore did not toll the appeal deadline and the 30 days began to run with the entry of judgment on March 27. The Employees did not file a notice of appeal until June 12. Because that notice was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2107, the Employees’ appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.” Edwards v 4JLJ, LLC, No. 19-40553 (Sept. 21, 2020) (on rehearing, footnotes omitted).

In Williams v. MMO Behavioral Health Systems, the Fifth Circuit affirmed a $244,000 judgment for defamation, entered after a jury trial. Good record keeping often benefits defendants in employment-related litigation, but in this case it helped the plaintiff on a key issue:

Before MMO had published the statement to the [Louisiana Workforce Commission], Williams had informed MMO that she did not falsify her timecard. This should have led MMO to examine Williams’s timecard. If MMO had done so, it would have discovered that even though Williams regularly clocked in every day, the timecard facially showed that someone else clocked in Williams on July 5th. This fact indicates that MMO should have known that Williams was not the one falsifying her timecard. The times for which Williams was clocked in on July 5th were also not her normal working hours, further suggesting that Williams was not the one to clock in on July 5th. Moreover, Williams did not fill out a missed-clock-punch form, which would have been necessary to allow someone else to clock her in or out, suggesting that Williams was not even involved with this July 5th clocking in and out.

No. 19-30757 (July 9, 2020) (unpublished).

Hewlett-Packard proved $176 million in antitrust damages at trial (later trebled); the defendant argued that HP had not proved it was a direct purchaser of the optical drives at issue. The Fifth Circuit affirmed. On the two key points, it held:

1. Expert testimony.  Under the proper standard of review, this testimony by HP’s damages expert sufficed: “[W]e did quite a lot of work to understand the data that we received; and it was my understanding, based on that work, that the data was purchases by the plaintiff HP, Inc. formerly known as Hewlett-Packard Company. . . . In the data files that I received, the transactions identified the supplier; and in any cases in which the supplier was identified as an HP entity, I excluded those . . . . ” 
2. Fact testimony. Any uncertainty in the following testimony by an HP executive was not enough to unseat the above-quoted expert conclusion:

Q. And so in a procurement event you have an ODD supplier and a purchaser, an entity that purchases. Did HP, Inc. . . . was that the purchaser in all of these procurement events that you have described?

A. It was some form of HP. I don’t know that it was HP, Inc., but it was a legal entity of HP, somewhere in the region that these were purchased, that purchased the drives.

Q. So the purchaser might not have been HP, Inc. at a particular procurement event? It might have been some subsidiary of HP, Inc.?

A. It could well have been, yes. . . . I’m not exactly sure on how that was spread out, but it could very well have been.

Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Quanta Storage, No. 19-20799 (June 5, 2020). A longer version of this post appears in the Texas Lawbook.

J&J Sports v. Enola Investments, a dispute about an unauthorized broadcast of the most recent “Fight of the Century” (Mayweather v. Pacquiao in 2015) led to a muddled record as to how the bar in question rebroadcast the fight:

“There is conflicting evidence about how the Lounge broadcast the Fight. Small claimed that an employee streamed the Fight over the internet, but J & J’s investigator testified that internet streaming typically results in lower quality video than the high definition broadcast he saw at the Lounge. J & J’s corporate representative also testified that the Fight was not available to commercial establishments via internet streaming. But J & J’s investigator muddled the waters by stating that he did not see cable or satellite equipment at the Lounge. And now, on appeal, defendants claim that the Lounge received the Fight via cable because Enola maintained a business account with Comcast. The only undisputed evidence is that the Fight was originally transmitted via satellite.”

This record required affirmance under the applicable standard: “The district court thus had several plausible options to choose from—satellite, internet, or cable. And when ‘there are two permissible views of the evidence, the fact-finder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.'” (citations omitted). No. 19-20458 (Feb. 28, 2020, unpublished).

“Repeatedly emphasizing that the classification turns on whether the deadline is in a statute, the Supreme Court has held that the time limits in Civil Rule 23(f), Appellate Rule 4(a)(5)(C), Criminal Rules 33 and 45, and Bankruptcy Rules 4004 and 9006 are not jurisdictional. The Court has not addressed the rule we confront, Civil Rule 50(b). But its reasoning in these cases—that “[i]t is axiomatic that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not create or withdraw federal jurisdiction,”—compels the conclusion that Rule 50(b) is also a claim-processing requirement. We therefore hold that Rule 50 does not impose a jurisdictional deadline.” Escribiano v. Travis County, No. 19-50236 (Jan. 10, 2020).

A $61,000 jury verdict for allegedly unfair debt collection practices turned on whether the debt at issue was a consumer debt; specifically, whether “the jury could reasonably infer that the Synchrony Bank dept at issue was the QVC credit card, which was used exclusively for personal purchases, and, therefore, a consumer debt.” Jones v. Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC, No 18-50703 (Dec. 12, 2019, unpubl.) The Fifth Circuit reversed the trial court’s grant of JMOL on this issue, rejecting four arguments by the defendant that involved “two jury functions: drawing inferences and making credibility determinations.” The Court concluded: “Though it may have been simpler for Jones to explicitly connect these dots for the jury, her failure to do so is not enough to overturn the jury’s verdict. We permit—and in fact implore—juries to process contradictory information and make inferences to reach a verdict. And that is what this jury did. It was not the clearest path to victory for Jones, but it was a reasonable path, which is all we require.”

DeJoria v. Maghreb Petroleum Exploration, S.A. presents, at first blush, an epic dispute in which “[t]he facts of this case are littered across the pages of the Federal Reporter.” A failed oil-development project in Morocco led to a $130 million judgment from the Moroccan courts. But after years of legal wrangling about the enforceability of that judgment in Texas, “despite the seeming complexity of this case—royal intrigue, a foreign proceeding, almost a billion dirhams at stake—it ends up being resolved on one of the most basic principles of appellate law: deference to the factfinder.” After confirming the correct legal framework, the Fifth Circuit found no clear error in the district court’s fact-findings. No. 18-50348 (Aug. 16, 2019).

After a five-week trial, three days of deliberation, and an Allen charge, the district court excused Juror No. 7. “[T]he district court found that Juror No. 7 had failed to follow instructions, exhibited a lack of candor during questioning, and had engaged in threatening behavior towards other jurors. Though defendants argue that this juror was removed for reasons that involve the deliberative process, there were sufficient independent reasons for his removal, namely, his lack of candor and his threatening behavior.” The Fifth Circuit followed Circuit precedent that “previously declined to apply the rule used by some circuits that prohibits dismissing a juror unless there is ‘no possibility’ that the failure to deliberate arises from their view of the evidence,” and instead reasons that “when the dismissal is due to a failure to be candid or a refusal to follow instructions, those are grounds that ‘do not implicate the deliberative process.’” United States v. Hodge, No. 17-20720 (Aug. 9, 2019) (applying United States v. Ebron, 683 F.3d 105 (2012)).

Longoria, a truck driver in Laredo, prevailed in a 3-day jury trial about his injuries arising from an accident, and won judgment for $2.8 million in total, based on the jury’s awards as to nine types of damages. The Fifth Circuit noted these points, among others, in reviewing the defendant’s appeal of that judgment:

• Sufficiency v. Excessiveness. “The sufficiency challenge asks only whether there is any evidence for a jury’s award; if there is, the judge’s job is at an end. An excessiveness challenge requires more extensive scrutiny, including—as will be seen—consideration of verdicts in similar cases. And we review the district court’s decision on remittitur only for an abuse of discretion. We cannot assess whether such discretion was abused if the district court was not asked to exercise it in the first instance.”
• Federal v. State. In a review for excessiveness: “The state/federal issue is presented because Texas does not use the maximum recovery rule. It instead conducts a more holistic assessment at both stages of the inquiry.”
• Pain. “This pain is significant. But an award of $1 million is ‘contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence,’ given that Longoria can mostly manage the pain by stretching and taking over-the-counter medicine.”
• Anguish. “Longoria points to his fear that he may be unable to keep working as a truck driver. He testified that this occupation is his ‘childhood dream’ and that without it, he could not support his family. But Longoria is cleared to work, and no doctor indicated his ability to work may change in the future. His understandable concern for the future is not the high degree of distress or frequent disruption Texas law requires.”

Longoria v. Hunter Express, No. 17-41042 (Aug. 1, 2019).

Emphasizing a significant difference between Texas and federal practice, ENI US Operating Co. v. Transocean clarified Circuit precedent and held: “Under [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 52(a), implicit findings will not automatically be inferred to support a conclusory ultimate finding. The district court must lay out enough subsidiary findings to allow us to glean ‘a clear understanding of the analytical process by which [the] ultimate findings were reached and to assure us that the trial court took care in ascertaining the facts.” Finding that the district court’s reasoning was insufficiently developed under this standard, the Fifth Circuit remanded for more detailed findings on a key point. The Court also reversed on two other issues of contract law:

• A clause referring to an indemnity obligation for “special, indirect, or consequential damages,” while a “limitation on the type of damages allowed . . . says nothing about what type of claims can be brought” (and thus, does not preclude a breach-of-warranty action); and
• A damages calculation based on a steady contract price was flawed because “it looks to what Eni actually did after termination, when the operative question is what Eni would have done in a non-breach world. . . . The district court should have attempted to determine, in the hypothetical non-breach world, how many days the Pathfinder [above, left] would have spent at each applicable rate.”

No. 18-20115 (March 28, 2019).

William Pearson won a modest judgment in an overtime dispute and appealed in Pearson v. Frequency Car Audio, seeking more. The Fifth Circuit affirmed; as to a challenge to the accuracy of the employer’s records, it observed:

“[T]he question before the district court was not whether Frequency kept proper records—it was whether Pearson worked overtime. And although the district court noted that Frequency’s books were “incomplete and not in evidence,” its conclusion that Pearson did not work overtime was based on its findings that: (1) Pearson’s claim that his work at Khalsa’s and Singh’s residences constituted work for Frequency was “incredible”; (2) Khalsa’s testimony that Pearson worked no overtime was credible; and (3) Pearson’s claim that he worked on cars before the shop opened was “unquantifiable.” Thus, the district court’s conclusion was largely based on the witnesses’ credibility, so we must give that conclusion due regard.”

No. 17-20769 (Nov. 2, 2018, unpublished) (emphasis added).

John Williams was seriously injured in a crane accident; a jury found that the crane manufacturer “failed to warn Model 16000 Series crane operators that, if the crane tips over, large weights stacked on the rear of the crane can slide forward and strike the operator’s cab.” The Fifth Circuit affirmed that multi-million dollar verdict, finding that the jury acted within its authority as to (1) liability for failure to warn, (2) proximate cause and alleged misuse by Williams, (3) proximate cause and an alleged alternative warning (left), (4) a Daubert challenge to the plaintiff’s expert on warnings (applying Roman v. Western Manufacturing, 691 F.3d 686 (5th Cir. 2012), and Huss v. Gayden, 571 F.3d 443 (5th Cir. 2009) – two powerful statements by the Court about admissible expert analysis), and (5) admissibility rulings about other accidents and the plaintiff’s prior conduct. The opinion provides a powerful illustration of a well-conducted trial by jury. Williamv v. Manitowoc Cranes LLC, No. 17-60458 (Aug. 3, 2018).

After trial of a Lanham Act claim involving the right to use the term “Cowboy” in advertising bourbon, the jury found abandonment of the plaintiff’s alleged mark, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed. “As the district court observed, the jury fairly rejected the testimony of Allied’s founder, Marci Palatella, and Allied’s price lists as evidence of intent to resume use. . . .  Garrison Brothers presented evidence undermining Palatella’s contention that Allied specializes in old, rare, and expensive whiskeys; disputing Palatella’s reliance on a bourbon shortage as a reason for Allied’s failure to sell ‘COWBOY LITTLE BARREL’ bourbon after 2009; and highlighting Palatella’s inconsistent testimony concerning Allied’s price lists.” Allied Lomar, Inc. v. Lone Star Distillery LLC,  No. 17-50148 (July 17, 2018, unpublished).

In Gulf Coast Workforce LLC v. Zurich American Ins. Co., the appellant’s “second point of error alleges that the district court awarded damages that no witness could explain or confirm. Zurich’s sole witness was Smith, who conducted the audit but did not work on billing matters. [Appellant] contends that, because Smith could not testify to the $53,161 premium, Zurich did not prove its damages.” The Fifth Circuit saw otherwise, identifying two trial exhibits that supported that figure and holding: “Therefore, the district court’s damages determination was not clearly erroneous.” No. 17-30379 (May 4, 2018, unpublished).

The Fifth Circuit reversed a JNOV on liability for breach of contract in Kerr v. Mapei Corp., holding: “The jury was presented with two alternative, but plausible, accounts of the formation and authorization of a contract. The jury reasonably selected one of those alternatives.” As to consequential-type damages for lost profits for other sales, however, the Court affirmed the judgment for the defendants, finding that the plaintiff’s damages model “was not supported by any empirical analysis or any evidence outside of the [contract] relationship . . . (e.g., real-world sales, customer surveys, or current market demand).” In particular, it noted the lack of evidence that the substantial business opportunity related to the contract would recur, the fact that the contract was terminable at will, and the lack of weight for a party’s own “unsubstantiated, self-serving speculations” about future business. No. 16-10430 (June 30, 2017 (revised), unpublished).

Litigation about the intellectual property rights to the name “Communicat-R” (here, applied to a specialized type of whiteboard) led to a jury trial. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in this instruction: “Trademarks can be abandoned through non-use. A trademark is abandoned if it is proven by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) the use of trademark was discontinued; and (2) an intent not to resume such use.” The Court rejected a request for additional language about “excusable nonuse,” finding that it would either be redundant or not entirely accurate in the context of this case. The Court also rejected sufficiency challenges to liability and damages, illustrating the operation of the federal standard for the grant of a new trial. Vetter v. McAtee, No. 15-20575 (March 1, 2017).

Montano v. Orange County, in affirming a substantial jury verdict about the mistreatment of a county prisoner, states several important principles about the appellate review of jury trials. This post focuses on one — the degree of specificity required of a defendant’s JMOL motion under FRCP 50(a), such that arguments in a later 50(b) motion will be seen as renewed rather than new (and thus waived).

The applicable legal standard had three elements; the county moved on the ground that the plaintiff had “no evidence of a constitutionally deficient policy, custom or practice,” going on to focus on the first element. The county later argued that the phrase “constitutionally deficient” necessarily included the other two elements, but the district court and Fifth Circuit disagreed. The purpose of the “specific grounds” requirement in Rule 50(a) is “to make the trial court aware of the movant’s position and to give the opposing party an opportunity to mend its case” – here, the County “did not clearly separate the points upon which [it] requested judgment, did not delineate which of its arguments applied to which of Plaintiffs’ claims, and blurred the lines of Plainitffs’ claims through its obtuse recitation of the case law.” No. 15-41432 (Nov. 29, 2016). Later posts will address other points made by this opinion about the review of jury verdicts.

OneBeacon Ins. Co. v. Welch & Assocs. involved insurance coverage for an attorney malpractice claim, arising for an exclusion for knowledge about “any actual or alleged act, error, omission or breach of duty arising out of the rendering or the failure to render professional legal services.” Since even the carrier agreed that “[o]n its face, this covers every single thing an attorney does or does not do, wrongful or not,” the Fifth Circuit found that the exclusion could not be applied literally without making the contract illusory. Focusing on the alleged “wrongful act,” the Court found that the relevant lawyer’s awareness of a discovery order and potential dispute was not equivalent to knowledge that a rare death-penalty sanction award would result. The Court also sustained an award of additional violations for an intentional violation of the Insurance Code with respect to the handling of the claim. No. 15-20402 (Nov. 14, 2016).

The plaintiff in Cowart v. Erwin achieved the difficult result of winning a jury trial on an Eighth Amendment claim against a detention officer. The opinion details the proof that satisfied a sufficiency review — multiple favorable eyewitnesses (and multiple unfavorable ones as well) throughout the entire incident in question, along with helpful and contemporaneous photographs and medical records (among others). “Objective” video evidence was not dispositive when it “is not necessarily inconsistent with eye witness accounts of what transpired at the jail on the day in question.”  No. 15-10404 (Sept. 20, 2016).

Jose Guzman, writer of the Tejano song Triste Aventuerera, sued Hacienda Records, alleging that its affiliated band “The Hometown Boys” infringed his copyright with their song Cartas de Amor (link below).  The Fifth Circuit affirmed judgment for the defendants.  After reminding about the significant deference due to the trial court on credibility issues, the Court agreed that Guzman’s evidence about radio play and live performance was properly rejected as to the issue of the defendants’ “opportunity to view” his song.  Similarly, while acknowledging similarity in the first sixteen words of both songs, expert testimony showed that the words were set to different music and appeared in other songs as well, thus supporting the trial court’s rejection of his alternative “striking similarity” theory.  The Court also declined to adopt a “sliding scale” test for infringement that would be weighted by the degree of similarity between the works at issue.

Hilda Garza sued Starr County for wrongfully discharging her as a county attorney, in retaliation for announcing her candidacy for the local school board, and she won a $1.4 million verdict for front pay at trial.  The district court set aside the verdict as advisory, reasoning that it went to an issue of equitable relief, and allowed the County to offer her reinstatement as an alternative remedy.  The Fifth Circuit reversed.  While Fed. R. Civ. P. 39(c) allows an advisory jury, it does not apply when: (1) the parties voluntarily submit an issue to a jury without formal objection, and (2) the district court does not announce in advance that the verdict is advisory.  Garza v. Starr County, Texas, No. 14-41343 (Oct. 20, 2015, unpublished) (citing, inter alia, Alcatel USA, Inc. v. DGI Techs., Inc., 166 F.3d 772 (5th Cir. 1999)).  (The County also challenged the award as excessive; while noting that the “more prudent course” would have been for the County to cross-appeal, the Court allowed the County to raise that issue on remand — although noting that the County’s lack of earlier objections would limit what it could raise.)

Myers slipped in the shower while working aboard a drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico.  In an echo of Blanton v. Newton Associates (a recent employment cases that turned on a prompt investigation into the facts), the rig operator quickly obtained a statement from Myers that said: “When getting out of shower, my shower shoe on left foot broke causing my left foot to slip and twist and resulted in falling out of shower.”  When Myers took an inconsistent position in trial (arguing that he fell because of inadequate rails and mats), this statement was key to affirmance of a defense judgment.  The Fifth Circuit also rejected an argument about the trial court’s review of the evidence: “Myers does not allege that the court did not see the flip flops; instead, he appears to object to the court’s failure to inspect them more closely. . . . When physical evidence is introduced at a bench trial, neither caselaw nor common sense establishes a minimum distance the judge must be from that evidence before the judge’s obligation to consider the evidence is satisfied.”  Myers v. Hercules Offshore Services, No. 15-30020 (Sept. 25, 2015, unpublished).

A business dispute about a telephone service provider’s billing system leads to 2 holdings of broad interest, one procedural and the other substantive:

1A.  Waiver.  “Although [defendant] moved for a directed verdict at the close of evidence, it did not argue in its motion that the Supply Contract was unenforceable.”  Accordingly, under Fed. R. Civ. 50(b), that argument could not be raised post-trial.  (Here, in fact, because defendant took the opposite position about the contract in the directed verdict motion, judicial estoppel also barred the later argument.)

1B.  Waiver of Waiver.  When defendant relied on a certain letter agreement in its Rule 50(b) motion, and plaintiff “did not argue waiver in its response . . . [plaintiff] has forfeited its right to raise the waiver issue on appeal.”

2.  Speculative damages.  A “strained business relationship” between the parties supported a holding that plaintiff’s $10 million lost profits award, assuming six years of business dealings, was not proven with “reasonable certainty.”  Transverse LLC v. Iowa Wireless Services, LLC, No. 13-51098 (revised Aug. 5, 2015, unpublished).

Allstate did not request a jury trial in its original complaint, but did in response to the defendant’s answer and counterclaim (which also included a jury demand, and which Allstate was entitled to rely upon).  After a summary judgment ruling, Allstate made a limited jury waiver on the remaining issue of damages.  The district court then vacated its summary judgment ruling and held a bench trial on all issues in the case — liability and damages.

The Fifth Circuit found that, “[a]lthough deference is generally accorded to a trial judge’s interpretation of a pretrial order,” this was “[a]t the very least . . a ‘doubtful situation'” that did not support the finding of “a knowing and voluntary relinquishment of the right” to jury trial pursuant to the Seventh Amendment. The Court also found harm because Allstate’s case could survive a JNOV motion, noting that “the district court relied heavily on its weighing of the credibility of the witness’s testimony at trial” in its fact finding.  Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded for jury trial.  Allstate Ins. Co. v. Community Health Center, Inc., No. 14-30506 (March 16, 2015, unpublished).

‘Blanton sued for employment discrimination, and after trial, “[t]here is no question that Blanton was subjected to egregious verbal sexual and racial harassment by the general manager of the Pizza Hut store where he worked.”  Blanton v. Newton Associates, Inc., No. 14-50087 (Feb. 10, 2015, unpublished).  The issue on appeal was whether the employer had established “the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense”; essentially, that the employer acted reasonably to stop the harassment and the employee unreasonably failed to enlist the employer’s aid.  The evidence showed a lack of training about the employer’s anti-discrimination policies, and that two low-level supervisors hesitated to report the harassment for fear of retaliation by the general manager, but that “[o]nce Blanton did complain to a manager with authority over the general manager, Pizza Hut completed an investigation and fired her within four days.”  Accordingly, the verdict and resulting judgment for the employer was affirmed.

Eastman Chemical, the manufacturer of a plastic resin used in water bottles and food containers, successfully sued Plastipure under the Lanham Act, alleging that Plastipure falsely advertised that Eastman’s resin contained a dangerous and unhealthy additive. Eastman Chemical Co. v. Plastipure, Inc., No. 13-51087 (Dec. 22, 2014). Relying on ONY, Inc. v. Cornerstone Therapeutics, Inc., 720 F.3d 490 (2d Cir. 2013), Plastipure argued that “commercial statements relating to live scientific controversies should be treated as opinions for Lanham Act purposes.”  The Fifth Circuit disagreed, noting that Plastipure made these statements in commercial ads rather than scientific literature, and observing: “Otherwise, the Lanham Act would hardly ever be enforceable — ‘many, if not most, products may be tied to public concerns with the environment, energy, economic policy, or individual health and safety.'”  The Court also rejected challenges to the jury instructions and to the sufficiency of the evidence as to falsity.

The parties to a contract about the construction of a barge disputed whether an amendment required price adjustments based on the price of steel.   Blessey Marine Services, Inc. v. Jeffboat, LLC, No. 13-30731 (Nov. 10, 2014, unpublished).  In a pretrial summary judgment ruling, the district court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the contract was unambiguous, and held a jury trial to hear extrinsic evidence and resolve the ambiguity.  On appeal, the Fifth Circuit held:

1.  Because the plaintiff did not renew the ambiguity argument in a Rule 50 motion (although it did raise the point in a motion in limine and in opposition to the other side’s motion), the Court could not consider it on appeal; and

2.  “By adducing some of the same extrinsic evidence at trial that it had sought to exclude in its motion in limine, [Plaintiff] waived its right to challenge the district court’s admission of that evidence.”  (citing Fed. R. Evid. 103(b) and Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753, 755 (2000) [“[A] party introducing evidence cannot complain on appeal that the evidence was erroneously admitted.”])

Estate of Elkins v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue presented a dispute about the taxable value of a decedent’s fractional ownership in an extremely valuable art portfolio, including works by Picasso, Jackson Pollock, and Cezanne. No. 13-60742 (Sept. 15, 2014).  Before the U.S. Tax Court, the IRS “steadfastly maintained that absolutely no fractional-ownership discount was allowable.” The estate offered expert testimony that “any hypothetical willing buyer would demand significant fractional-ownership discounts in the face of becoming a co-owner with the Elkins descendants, given their financial strength and sophistication, their legal restraints on alienation and partition, and their determination never to sell their interests in the art.”

The Tax Court applied a “‘nominal’ discount of 10 percent only.”  The Fifth Circuit reversed: “[T]he Estate’s uncontradicted, unimpeached, and eminently credible evidence in support of its proferred fractional-ownership discounts is not just a ‘preponderance’ of such evidence; it is the only such evidence.  Nowhere is there any evidentiary support for the Tax Court’s unsubstantiated declaration” about the 10% discount (emphasis in original).  In reviewing the IRS’s “no discount” position at trial, the Court noted in footnote 7: “The Commissioner appears to have ignored, or been unaware of, the venerable lesson of Judge Learned Hand’s opinion in Cohan: In essence, make as close an approximation as you can, but never use a zero.”  Cohan v. Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540, 543-44 (2d Cir. 1930).

The bankruptcy debtor in McClendon v. Springfield had lost a defamation judgment for $341,000.  No. 13-41030 (Aug. 26, 2014, unpublished).  Because “the jury’s verdict could be sustained either on intentionality or recklessness,” the bankruptcy court held an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the claim resulted from a “wilful and malicious” injury.  Concluding that it did, the court denied discharge of that claim.  On appeal, the debtor argued that “a trial judge may not use his disbelief of a witness as affirmative support for the proposition that the opposite of the witness’s testimony is the truth.”  (citing Seymour v. Oceanic Navigating Co., 453 F.2d 1185, 1190-91 (5th Cir. 1972)) (Texas state practitioners are familiar with similar sufficiency principles from City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005)).  The Fifth Circuit rejected this argument, both in light of the entire record received by the bankruptcy court, and because:  “[H]here, the factual inquiry was binary, a question whether [the debtor] acted willfully and maliciously or not.  . . . [T]he bankruptcy court’s disbelief of [the debtor’s] statements that he did not know the statements were false leaves only the alternative that he did know . . . .”

A builder obtained a 6-figure judgment against an architect, for cost overruns and lost profits, resulting from the architect’s negligence.  Garrison Realty LP v. Fouse Architecture & Interiors, PC, No. 12-40764 (Oct. 21, 2013, unpublished).  The jury awarded distinct sums for negligence and negligent misrepresentation.  The Fifth Circuit found that the causes of action were duplicative in this context and reversed as to the inclusion of the smaller award in the final judgment. The Court also held that the defendant had waived an argument for a partial offset as a result of a prior lawsuit, finding that offset had not been pleaded as a defense, and that the plaintiff was prejudiced because it could have changed its trial proof had the issue been raised earlier.  (On the pleading issue, the Court noted that the defendant had alleged offset, but only claimed it was a bar “in whole” rather than “in whole or in part.”)

After a jury trial, the plaintiff won judgment of $336,000 for breach of a joint venture to bid a contract with the Air Force about upgrades to the storied Paveway laser-guided bomb program.  X Technologies v. Marvin Test Systems, No. 12-50230 (June 11, 2013).  On the issue of causation, the Fifth Circuit quickly dismissed two challenges to a key witness’s qualifications since he was not testifying as an expert, and also dismissed the effect of a claimed impeachment in light of the full record developed at trial.  The Court went on to affirm a directed verdict on a claimed defense of prior breach, finding that the agreement only imposed a one-way bar on multiple bids for the contract, and to affirm the judgment of breach, noting multiple uses of “team” in the record to describe the parties’ relationship.

In Homoki v. Conversion Services, a check processing company sued its sales agent and a competitor.  No. 11-20371 (May 28, 2013).  It won judgment for $700,000 against the competitor for tortious interference with the sales agent’s contract with the company, and $2.15 million against the agent for past and future lost profits.  The company and competitor appealed.  First, the Fifth Circuit — assuming without deciding that the plaintiff had to show the competitor’s awareness of an exclusivity provision in the agent’s contract — found sufficient evidence of such knowledge in testimony and the parties’ course of dealing, and affirmed liability for tortious interference.  Second, the Court found that the plaintiff’s “experience in managing his business for sixteen years” supported his damages testimony, and that “[w]hile [plaintiff]’s presentation of its damages evidence was far from ideal,” also found sufficient evidence of causation on the interference claim.  Finally, the Court found that the plaintiff had given adequate notice of its claim of conspiracy to breach fiduciary duties (the joint pretrial order was not signed by the judge), but the plaintiff waived jury trial on that issue by not requesting a damages question — particularly given the significant dispute about causation in the evidence presented.

In Miller v. Raytheon Co., the Fifth Circuit affirmed liability for age discrimination and affirmed in part on damages.  No. 11-10586 (revised, July 30, 2013).  Among holdings of broader interest in civil litigation, the Court: (1) affirmed the verdict of liability, noting: “Considered in isolation, we agree with Raytheon that each category of evidence presented at trial might be insufficient to support the jury’s verdict.  But based upon the accumulation of circumstantial evidence and the credibility  determinations that were required, we conclude that ‘reasonable men could differ’ about the presence of age discrimination”; (2) reversed an award of mental anguish damages because “plaintiff’s conclusory statements that he suffered emotional harm are insufficient”; and (3) rejected a challenge, based on the Texas Constitution, to the statutory punitive damages cap in the TCHRA.

In Wellogix, Inc. v. Accenture, LLP, LLP the district court entered judgment for the plaintiff — $26.2 million in compensatory damages and $18.2 million in punitives, after a remittitur —  in a trade secrets case about software to make oil exploration more efficient.  No. 11-20816 (May 15, 2013, revised Jan. 15, 2014).  Affirming, the Court: (1) reminded, in the opening paragraph, of the deference due to a jury verdict; (2) detailed the sufficient evidence before the jury of a trade secret, of its inappropriate use by the defendant, of damages, and malice; (3) rejected Daubert arguments about the scope of the plaintiff’s computer science expert’s testimony  and the material considered by its damages expert; and (4) affirmed the punitive damages award because it was less than the compensatory damages and the issue of “reprehensibility” was neutral.  The Court also analyzed aspects of the relationship between trade secret claims and the patent process.  Footnote 4 of the opinion provides a useful guide to the federal courts’ treatment of a “Casteel problem” in Texas jury submissions.

In Versata Software v. SAP America, the Federal Circuit affirmed jury verdicts that will likely lead to a judgment in excess of $400 million.  That Circuit’s review of a verdict is “reviewed under regional circuit law,” as to which the Court observed: “The Fifth Circuit applies an ‘especially deferential’ standard of review ‘with respect to the jury verdict.'”  (citing Brown v. Bryan County, 219 F.3d 450, 456 (5th Cir. 2000)).  In affirming the award for a reasonable royalty, the Court quoted the recent case of Huffman v. Union Pacific R.R., which discussed “inference on the basis of common sense, common understanding and fair beliefs, grounded on evidence consisting of direct statement by witnesses or proof of circumstances from which inferences can fairly be drawn.”  675 F.3d 412, 421 (5th Cir. 2012).  (Huffman is nominally about the causation requirements of FELA, but its analysis easily extends to other basic Daubert issues.)

The plaintiff in RBIII, L.P. v. City of San Antonio sought damages after the City of San Antonio razed a property without providing prior notice.  No. 11-50626 (April 23, 2013).  After a jury trial it recovered $27,500 in damages.  The Fifth Circuit found that a key jury instruction on the City’s defenses “improperly cast the central factual dispute as whether or not the Structure posed an immediate danger to the public, when the issue should have been whether the City acted arbitrarily or abused its discretion in determining that the Structure presented an immediate danger.”  Accordingly, “[b]ecause this error in the instructions misled the jury as to the central factual question in the case,” the Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.   The Court’s analysis summarizes how federal courts address the issue of harm in erroneous jury instructions that the Texas Supreme Court has engaged in the Casteel line of cases.

The plaintiff in Smith v. Santander Consumer USA received $20,43.59 in damages for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.  No. 12-50007 (Dec. 20, 2012).  The Fifth Circuit agreed that damages were not recoverable solely for a reduced line of credit, but found sufficient other evidence about harm to the plaintiff’s business and personal finances to affirm.  Enthusiasts of appellate arcana will find it interesting to compare the Court’s analysis of a general federal verdict under the Boeing standard with the Texas damages submissions required by Harris County v. Smith, 96 S.W.3d 230 (Tex. 2002) (applying Crown Life Ins. v. Casteel, 22 S.W.3d 378 (Tex. 2000)).