Pankey et al v. Western Arkansas Rock, Inc. et al

Filing 152

ORDER denying 150 Motion for New Trial. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on September 24, 2015. (mll)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
TERRELL PANKEY and
SMITH COUNTY STONE, LLC
VS.

PLAINTIFFS
Civil No. 4:13-cv-4046

WESTERN ARKANSAS ROCK, INC.

DEFENDANT
ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for New Trial. (ECF No. 150). Defendant has filed
a response to the motion. (ECF No. 151). The Court finds this matter ripe for consideration.
The jury trial of this matter was held on April 14-17, 2015. (ECF Nos. 129, 131-132 &
134).

The jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendant Western Arkansas Rock, Inc.

(“WAR”). Specifically, the jury found in favor of WAR on Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim
and found in favor of WAR on its counterclaims for breach of contract and deceit. As to WAR’s
breach of contract counterclaim, the jury awarded WAR unpaid royalties of $119,664.46 and
audit costs of $1,600.00. As to the counterclaim for deceit, the jury awarded no damages.
Because issues of treble damages, interest, and attorney’s fees remained, the Court did not enter
a judgment on the verdict at the conclusion of the trial.

On May 13, 2015, Judgment was

entered in favor of Defendant. (ECF No. 149).
At the close of Plaintiffs’ case, Plaintiffs moved for a directed verdict on their breach of
contract claim against WAR. Plaintiffs argued that “the uncontroverted evidence establishes that
[WAR] breached the parties’ contract (Mining Lease)” because the lease was allegedly
terminated prematurely on insufficient grounds and Plaintiffs were not given proper notice of
their alleged defaults or an opportunity to cure those defaults. The Court denied the motion,
finding that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that WAR was not liable for

breach of contract stemming from the termination of the Mining Lease. Plaintiffs later renewed
their motion (ECF No. 142) making precisely the same arguments contained in their Motion for
Directed Verdict. Plaintiffs argued that the jury’s failure to find in favor of Plaintiffs on their
breach of contract claim was “against the greater weight of the evidence.” The Court denied
Plaintiffs’ renewed motion on May 13, 2015. (ECF No. 149). Subsequently, Plaintiffs filed a
Motion for New Trial (ECF No. 150) which is presently before the Court. The text of Plaintiffs’
motion is virtually identical to their Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. (ECF
No. 142). The Court has already considered Plaintiffs’ arguments and found them to be without
merit. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ Motion for New Trial (ECF No. 150) should
be and hereby is DENIED. There was sufficient evidence before the jury for it to conclude that
WAR should not be held liable for breach of contract.

For this reason, a new trial is

unwarranted.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 24th day of September, 2015.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge

2