Breland et al v. Levada EF Five, LLC

Filing 173

Order on trial by jury held on 2/1, 2/2 & 2/3/16. Rulings on motions made as set out. Jury returned their verdict (attached) in open court as set out. Post trial motions are to be filed NLT 3/4/2016. Any responses to said motions should be filed NLT 3/11/2016. Judgment will be entered separately in accordance w/the verdict of the jury after the court determines the issue regarding attorneys' fees. Signed by Judge Callie V. S. Granade on 2/3/2016. (Attachment: # 1 Verdict) (tot)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CHARLES K. BRELAND, JR.,
OSPREY UTAH, LLC, WATER
CANYON HOLDINGS, LLC, RANGE
CREEK HOLDINGS, LLC, and
UTAH REVERSE EXCHANGE, LLC,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
LEVADA EF FIVE, LLC
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-0158-CG-C

ORDER
The above-styled action came on for trial by jury on February 1, 2, and 3,
2016, before United States District Judge Callie V. S. Granade. The jury was
selected before Judge Granade on February 1, 2016.
On February 1, 2016, prior to jury selection, the Court held an in-camera
hearing with counsel, at which the court made the following rulings for the reasons
as set forth on the record:
Plaintiffs’ orally moved to renew their motion to consolidate actions and
continue trial (Doc. 161). The Court advised that the motion would be taken under
submission once a written motion was filed.1
Plaintiffs’ oral motion in limine to preclude admission of defendant’s exhibits
7 and 8 to be taken up at time offered.2
1
2

Motion is DENIED as MOOT.
Motion is DENIED as to Exhibit 8, and deemed to be MOOT as to Exhibit 7 since said

Defendant’s oral motion in limine to preclude plaintiffs from introducing an
Invoice from Reed and Smith as an exhibit to be taken up at the time such exhibit is
offered.3
The jury was then duly sworn, and trial commenced. Plaintiffs presented
their case-in-chief on February 1 and 2, 2016, and rested on February 2, 2016. At
the close of the plaintiffs’ case the defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of
law (Doc. 163) was GRANTED in part and DENIED in part for the reasons as set
forth on the record.
On February 2, 2016, defendant presented its case and rested. At the close of
all the evidence, the Court DENIED the plaintiffs’ oral motion for judgment as a
matter of law on the nonpayment of property taxes (Doc. 169); DENIED Plaintiffs’
oral motion for judgment as a matter of law as to defendant’s counter-claims (Doc.
167); DENIED defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law at the
conclusion of all the evidence (Doc. 164); and DENIED plaintiffs’ oral motion for
judgment as a matter of law at the close of all the evidence (Doc. 168).
On February 3, 2016, the court held a charge conference with counsel, the
respective parties presented their closing arguments to the jury, the court charged
the jury on the applicable law, and the jury commenced their deliberations.
Now, on the 3rd day of February, comes the jury who having heard the
evidence, the arguments of counsel, the charge of the court and having considered
the same upon their oaths, return their verdict (a copy of which is attached hereto)
exhibit was not offered.
3
Motion is deemed to be MOOT since no such exhibit was offered.
2

into open court with counsel present.
Post trial motions are to be filed no later than March 4, 2016. Any
responses to said motions shall be filed no later than March 11, 2016.
A judgment will be entered separately in accordance with the verdict of the
jury after the court determines the issue regarding attorneys’ fees.
DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of February, 2016.
/s/ Callie V. S. Granade
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3