DeMartini, et al. v. DeMartini, et al.

Filing 375

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 7/26/18. The Court DENIES Defendants' Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, New Trial, or Amended Judgment 360 . (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TIMOTHY P. DEMARTINI, et al.,

12

No.

2:14-cv-2722-JAM-CKD

Plaintiffs,

13

v.

14

MICHAEL J. DEMARTINI, et al.,

15

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
OR NEW TRIAL

Defendants.

16
This family dispute is back before the Court on Defendants’

17
18

(Michael J. DeMartini and Renate DeMartini) renewed motion for

19

judgment as a matter of law.

20

new trial or an amended judgment.1

Alternatively, Defendants seek a
Defendants’ motion is DENIED.

21
I.

22

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

After several years of litigation, this case went to trial

23
24

before a jury on Plaintiffs’ (Timothy P. DeMartini and Margie

25

DeMartini) breach of contract claim.

ECF Nos. 328 & 332.

Before

26
27
28

This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was
scheduled for July 10, 2018.
1
1

1

the Court submitted the case to the jury, Defendants moved for

2

judgment as a matter of law.

3

motion.

4

181:18–21.

5

awarded damages of $68,606.25 on the breach of contract claim.

6

Jury Verdict, ECF No. 335.

7

ECF No. 333.

The Court denied the

Trial Transcript (“Transcript”), ECF Nos. 342–344, at
The jury returned a verdict for Plaintiffs and

Following the jury trial, the Court held a bench trial on

8

Plaintiffs’ partition claim.

ECF No. 336.

9

claim, the Court issued an interlocutory judgment ordering the

10

subject property to be partitioned in kind.

11

Judgment, ECF No. 361.

12

under review.

13

As to the partition

Interlocutory

Plan, ECF No. 372.

The terms of the partition are still

See Notice and Filing of Proposed Subdivision

14
15

II.

OPINION

16

A.

Legal Standard

17

Once a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury

18

trial, the Court may grant a motion for judgment as a matter of

19

law if it finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally

20

sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue.

21

Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1).

22

sought and the law and facts that entitle the movant to the

23

judgment.

24

the motion during trial, “the movant may file a renewed motion

25

for judgment as a matter of law and may include an alternative or

26

joint request for a new trial under Rule 59.”

27

50(b).

28

(1) allow judgment on the verdict, if the jury returned a

Such motion must specify the judgment

Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(2).

If the Court does not grant

Fed. R. Civ. P.

“In ruling on the renewed motion, the [C]ourt may:

2

1

verdict; (2) order a new trial; or (3) direct the entry of

2

judgment as a matter of law.”

3

Id.

In deciding a Rule 50(b) motion, the Court is bound to

4

uphold the jury’s verdict if that verdict is supported by

5

substantial evidence.

6

Dist., 251 F.3d 1222, 1227 (9th Cir. 2001).

7

evidence is evidence adequate to support the jury’s conclusion,

8

even if it is also possible to draw a contrary conclusion from

9

the same evidence.”

Johnson v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch.

Id.

“Substantial

The Court “must view the evidence in

10

the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all

11

reasonable inferences in that party’s favor.”

12

Daddy Software, Inc., 581 F.3d 951, 961 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting

13

Josephs v. Pac. Bell, 443 F.3d 1050, 1062 (9th Cir.2006)).

14

test applied is whether the evidence permits only one reasonable

15

conclusion, and that conclusion is contrary to the jury’s

16

verdict.”

17

to the grounds asserted in the Rule 50(a) motion.

18

Id.

E.E.O.C. v. Go

“The

A motion under Rule 50(b) is necessarily limited
Id.

A party may request a new trial or move to alter or amend a

19

judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59.

Under Rule

20

59(a), the Court “may grant a new trial only if the verdict is

21

contrary to the clear weight of the evidence, is based upon false

22

or perjurious evidence, or to prevent a miscarriage of justice.”

23

Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Prod., Inc., 212 F.3d

24

493, 510 n.15 (9th Cir. 2000).

25

under Rule 59(e), the Court may reconsider “matters properly

26

encompassed in a decision on the merits.”

27

Hoggett v. Univ. of Phoenix, 863 F.3d 1105, 1108 (9th Cir. 2017)

28

(citation omitted).

For a motion brought

United States ex rel.

“To alter or amend the judgment requires a
3

1

substantive change of mind by the court.”

2

quotation marks omitted).

3

Rule 59(e) motion unless the court “is presented with newly

4

discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an

5

intervening change in the controlling law.”

6

Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted).

7

B.

8
9

Id. (citation and

A district court should not grant a

McDowell v.

Analysis
1.

Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law

Defendants argue they are entitled to judgment as a matter

10

of law because there was no evidence of a contract between the

11

parties that required Defendants to pay Plaintiffs any money and

12

because there was no evidence of a breach of the alleged

13

contract.

14

provision of the written contract the parties entered with West

15

America bank establishes that Plaintiffs waived their claim

16

against Defendants.

17

arguments in their Rule 50(a) motion and the Court may therefore

18

consider them.

19

and mitigation evidence were not addressed in the Rule 50(a)

20

motion and thus fall outside the scope of arguments the Court may

21

consider under Rule 50(b).

22

Mot. at 4–7.

They also argue that the waiver

Mot. at 7–8.

Defendants raised these

Defendants arguments concerning the verdict form

Despite Defendants’ attempts to marshal evidence in their

23

favor, the record contains sufficient evidence to support the

24

jury’s verdict.

25

between the parties to share in the encumbrance of the loan and

26

each pay back their share.

27

172:22–173:1.

28

this agreement by failing to reimburse Plaintiffs for repaying

First, there was evidence of an agreement

Transcript 93:2–10, 93:22–94:8,

There was also evidence that Defendants breached

4

1
2

the loan.

Transcript 102:5–8, 174:4–6.

Next, although the written contract with West America bank

3

contained a waiver provision, see Defendants’ Trial Exhibit M,

4

Defendants did not prove, as a matter of law, that Plaintiffs

5

freely and knowingly gave up their right to have Defendants

6

perform on this obligation.

7

by clear and convincing evidence that Plaintiffs knowingly gave

8

up their right to pursue relief against Defendants.

9

5; Transcript at 229:10–25.

It was Defendants’ burden to prove

See Opp’n at

Although a jury could have inferred

10

such knowing waiver from the language of the West America

11

contract, there was little additional evidence showing

12

Plaintiffs’ subjective intention to waive their claim.

13

Transcript at 107:1–3.

14

concluded that Defendants failed to meet their burden.

15

Court explained in denying each of the parties’ motions for

16

favorable adjudication on this issue, a reasonable jury reviewing

17

the evidence could find in favor of either party on the waiver

18

defense.

19

Rule 50(b) motion is denied.

20
21

See

Thus, a jury could have reasonably
As the

Transcript at 221:2–223:6. Accordingly, Defendants’

2.

Motion for New Trial or to Amend the Judgment

Defendants argue they are entitled to relief under Federal

22

Rule of Civil Procedure 59 because the Court gave an improper

23

jury instruction on the verdict form and because the Court

24

excluded relevant evidence.

25

granting the Rule 59 motion.

26

Neither of these grounds justify

First, the Court finds Defendants are not entitled to relief

27

based on their disagreement with the verdict form.

28

did not object to the verdict form or the jury instructions when
5

Defendants

1

the Court gave them the opportunity to do so at trial.

2

Transcript 190:15–192:12. Defendants may not belatedly raise

3

their objection in this motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 51; Ayuyu v.

4

Tagabuel, 284 F.3d 1023, 1026 (9th Cir. 2002) (“We hold that Rule

5

51 includes objections to the form of the verdict as well as to

6

any instructions about the use by the jury of the form.

7

no objections to the instructions are found in the record, they

8

are deemed waived.”) (discussing waiver on appeal); see Jones v.

9

Hollenback, No. CV-F-05-148 OWW/DLB, 2007 WL 3335012, at *7–8

Because

10

(E.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2007) (applying waiver rule to a plaintiff’s

11

motion for new trial).

12

denied.

Defendants’ motion, on this basis, is

13

The Court also is not persuaded that the exclusion of

14

purportedly relevant evidence suffices to warrant a new trial or

15

amendment.

16

mitigation evidence were discussed at trial.

17

136:11–146:10.

18

affirmative defense, see Second Amended Answer, ECF No. 104, it

19

became clear in the course of trial that Defendants’ mitigation

20

evidence pertained to a full accounting of the financial

21

relationship between the parties, not to Plaintiffs’ failure to

22

mitigate damages related to the breach of contract in this

23

matter.2

24

for accounting was pled, nor was such an accounting contemplated

25

in the pretrial filings.

26
27
28

The problems with Defendants’ attempt to introduce
Transcript at

Although Defendants raised mitigation as an

Transcript at 136:11–146:10, 182:22–183:2.

No claim

See Defendants’ Trial Brief, ECF No.

Plaintiffs argue the Court’s Pretrial Order supersedes the
pleadings, but the Pretrial Order states that “[n]one of
Defendants’ affirmative defenses have been abandoned.” See
Pretrial Conference Order, ECF No. 284, at 5.
6
2

1

316, at 25 (only briefing the defense of “waiver”).

The

2

admission of this alleged mitigation evidence would necessarily

3

open the door to inquiry into a number of different bank accounts

4

and financial arrangements between the parties.

5

145:11–18, 146:13–148:11, 194:25–195:3.

6

that these matters should be resolved in another suit for a full

7

accounting of these financial matters or possibly a later stage

8

of the partition action.

9

to be resolved in this matter, however, was limited to breach of

Transcript

The Court determined

Transcript at 145:11–18.

The dispute

10

contract with respect to this particular loan.

See Pretrial

11

Conference Order, ECF No. 284; Pretrial Conference Transcript,

12

ECF No. 286.

13

payments made on the loan at issue in this case, Transcript

14

198:10–19, and Defendants did not proffer any further grounds for

15

the Court to find the exhibit relevant to the narrow issue at

16

hand.

17

concerning this particular loan and agreement.

18

was not clear error and did not result in manifest injustice.

19

Therefore, Defendants’ Rule 59 motion is denied.

Defendants’ Exhibit PPPPPP did not show any

The Court properly limited Defendants’ evidence to that
This exclusion

20
21
22

III.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES

23

Defendants’ Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, New Trial, or

24

Amended Judgment.

25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 26, 2018

27
28
7