Lear Siegler Services v. Ensil International Corp.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [09-51060 Affirmed] Judge: EHJ , Judge: TMR , Judge: CH. Mandate pull date is 01/05/2011 [09-51060]

Lear Siegler Services v.se: 09-51060 Document: 00511321993 Ca Ensil International Corp.

Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/15/2010

Doc. 0

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
December 15, 2010 N o . 09-51060 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

L E A R SIEGLER SERVICES, P la in t iff ­ Appellee v. E N S I L INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

D e fe n d a n t ­ Appellant

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Western District of Texas U S D C No. 5:05-CV-679

B e fo r e JONES, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* T h is is an appeal from a judgment rendered against Ensil International C o r p o r a t io n ("Ensil"), a vendor for government repair contracts on avionics e q u ip m e n t , for breach of contract concerning eight sophisticated combined in t e r r o g a t in g transponder (CIT) units. The jury found Ensil liable and awarded a p p r o x im a t e ly a half million dollars in damages incurred by appellee Lear

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-51060 Document: 00511321993 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/15/2010

No. 09-51060 S ie g le r Services to have further repairs made by another concern. Ensil raises o n ly the issues whether sufficient evidence supported the verdict; whether S u p p ly Discrepancy Reports (SDRs) sent by the South Koreans who complained a b o u t the units were properly admitted; and whether the court, after deciding t o grant a partial new trial for alleged defective repairs of 67 other units Ensil h a n d le d , was also obliged to extend the new trial to these units. Finding no e r r o r or abuse of discretion in these rulings, we affirm. E n s il contends the evidence is legally insufficient to support a finding of d e fe c t iv e warranty repairs because Lear failed to prove that defects later d is c o v e r e d in the eight CIT units had existed when they left Ensil's control. The B o e in g test for granting judgment as a matter of law requires us to review the e v id e n c e supporting the judgment in the light most favorable to the verdict and a u t h o r iz e s reversal only if no reasonable jury could have found for the appellee. Boeing Co. v Shipman, 411 F.2d 365, 374-75 (5th Cir. 1969) (en banc), overruled o n other grounds by Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine, Inc., 107 F.3d 331, 336 (5th C ir . 1997) (en banc). As the district court noted in its response to a postju d g m e n t motion urging the same point, the jury could have credited the t e c h n ic a l testimony from IEI, the facility that performed the later repairs, that t h e defects it found in the CITs could not have been caused by the end users (the S o u t h Korean Air Force). Likewise, a reasonable jury could conclude that the a b s e n c e of an Ensil sticker or seal on the units or any other "documentation e v id e n c in g inspection, testing or repairs, suggests that Ensil had not made any r e p a ir s at any time." The appellee's evidence also rebutted Ensil's claim that e x p o s u r e to electrostatic discharge by the end users caused the CIT units' d e fe c t s . Ensil may disagree with the quality of this evidence, but it is sufficient t o support the verdict. A s to the court's admission of the SDRs with abundant limiting in s t r u c t io n s that the SDRs proved only the existence of complaints about these 2

Case: 09-51060 Document: 00511321993 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/15/2010

No. 09-51060 u n it s and not that the units were defective, the appellate review standard is a b u s e of discretion. Johnson v. Ford Motor Co., 988 F.2d 573, 578 (5th Cir. 1 9 9 3 ). This court will not reverse unless the district court erred in the

a d m is s io n of evidence and the error affected a substantial right of a party. Id. C o n t r a r y to Ensil's view, we must assume that the jury followed the court's lim it in g instructions, which directed their attention to the non-hearsay matter e v id e n c e d by the filing of the reports. No error occurred. L a s t , the court's denial of a new trial as to these eight CIT units, after it g r a n t e d a new trial (and ultimately judgment as a matter of law) regarding the o t h e r 67 non-CIT units, is also reviewed for abuse of discretion. Shows v. J a m is o n Bedding, Inc., 671 F.2d 927, 930 (5th Cir. 1982). Federal Rule of Civil P r o c e d u r e 59(a) specifically authorizes the grant of a partial new trial. Although it seems intuitive that the jury would be influenced by hearing of a larger n u m b e r of alleged contract breaches by Ensil than should have gone to trial, it is not evident how much the evidence of the non-CIT units tainted the liability c a s e concerning the units now at issue. Indeed, there seems to have been little o v e r la p in the evidence, and the court instructed the jury not to consider its v e r d ic t answers on the other repair contracts when it considered the issues p e r t a in in g to the eight CIT units. Ensil has pointed to no piece of evidence, a r g u m e n t , or testimony that, when admitted on the 67 other contracts, spilled o v e r or prejudiced its position on the units now at issue. We cannot hold that t h e trial court abused its discretion because of a mere suspicion. For these reasons, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

3