Hathaway v. Idaho-Pacific Corporation

Filing 122

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. It is HEREBY ORDERED: Hathaways Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 119 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge David C. Nye. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (km)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
ROSS HATHAWAY,

Case No. 4:15-cv-00086-DCN

Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

v.
IDAHO PACIFIC CORPORATION,
Defendant.
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Ross Hathaway’s Motion for
Reconsideration. Dkt. 119. Hathaway asks this Court to reconsider its Memorandum
Decision and Order denying his Motion for Entry of Partial Judgment. Dkt. 118. Having
reviewed the record, the Court finds that the facts and legal arguments are adequately
presented in the briefs. Accordingly, in the interest of avoiding further delay, and because
the Court finds that the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral
argument, the Court decides the Motion on the record without oral argument. Dist. Idaho
Loc. Civ. R. 7.1(d)(2)(ii). For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds good cause to
DENY the Motion.

MEMORANUDM DECISION AND ORDER – 1

II. BACKGROUND
A five-day jury trial was held in this employment discrimination case in midDecember 2017. The Court submitted three claims to the Jury via a special verdict form:
(1) discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”); (2) retaliation
under the ADA; and (3) wrongful discharge under Idaho state law. During deliberations,
the Jury sent a note to the Court indicating that its members had “reached a point of
aggressive disagreement.” In response, the Court gave the Jury an Allen instruction.1 The
Jury then returned to its deliberations.
A few hours later, the Jury sent another note to the Court stating that it had
reached a “unanimous decision on only one claim” and that it was unable to agree on the
other two claims. The Jury asked if it had to reach a decision on all three claims or if the
Court could rule on the other two claims. The Court questioned the Jury as to whether
they were willing to continue deliberating. After indicating that further deliberation
would not be helpful, the Court permitted the Jury to return a verdict on the sole claim on
which it was able to reach a unanimous decision. The Jury found in favor of Hathaway on
the Idaho wrongful discharge claim and awarded him $34,302 in lost wages. The Jury did
not answer any of the questions on the verdict form regarding the ADA retaliation claims.
As to the ADA discrimination claim, the Jury determined that Hathaway had a disability

1

An Allen instruction or Allen charge is a supplemental jury instruction a court gives to
encourage a jury to reach a verdict after the jury has been unable to agree for some period of
deliberation. Such an instruction has long been sanctioned. See Allen v. United States, 164 U.S.
492, 501–02 (1896).
MEMORANUDM DECISION AND ORDER – 2

and that he was a qualified individual under the ADA. However, the Jury failed to answer
any other questions regarding the ADA discrimination claims.
The Court reserved ruling on the impact of the partial verdict until after
considering any post-trial motions. Shortly thereafter, Defendant Idaho Pacific
Corporation (“IPC”) filed a Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law on All Claims, or,
In the Alternative, for a New Trial. Dkt. 107. Simultaneously, Hathaway filed a Motion
for Entry of Partial Judgment and to Set Re-Trial of the ADA Claims. Dkt. 109. After the
Motions were fully briefed, the Court issued a Memorandum Decision and Order denying
both motions, declaring a mistrial, and ordering a new trial on all claims. Dkt. 118.
Thereafter, Hathaway filed the pending Motion for reconsideration. That Motion is
now fully briefed and ripe for decision.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
“[N]either the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Local Rules provide for a
motion to reconsider.” Magnus Pac. Corp. v. Advanced Explosives Demolition, Inc., No.
2:13-CV-0060-EJL-CWD, 2014 WL 3533622, at *1 (D. Idaho July 15, 2014).
Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit has instructed that courts should treat motions to
reconsider “as motions to alter or amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).”
Id. (citing Sierra On–Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1419 (9th Cir.
1984)). “While Rule 59(e) permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous
order, the rule offers an ‘extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of
finality and conservation of judicial resources.’” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945
(9th Cir. 2003) (quoting 12 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.30[4]
MEMORANUDM DECISION AND ORDER – 3

(3d ed. 2000)). Accordingly, a district court should only grant a motion for
reconsideration if (1) it “is presented with newly discovered evidence,” (2) it “committed
clear error,” or (3) “there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Id. (citation
omitted). “A Rule 59(e) motion may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence
for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.”
Id. “Whether or not to grant reconsideration is committed to the sound discretion of the
court.” See Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation,
331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Kona Enter., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229
F.3d 877, 883 (9th Cir. 2000)).
IV. ANALYSIS
Hathaway argues that the Court should grant his Motion for Reconsideration
because the Court committed clear error in denying his Motion for Entry of Partial
Judgment. He maintains the Court should have entered judgment in his favor on his state
law claim⸺the only claim on which the Jury returned a complete verdict. Citing Zhang v.
American Gem Seafoods, Inc., 339 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2003), Hathaway argues an
inconsistency in a general jury verdict as to two separate claims is not a basis for a new
trial on the entire case. In Zhang, the jury rejected the plaintiff’s state-law discrimination
claims, but “found that the corporate defendants . . . were liable for federal-law
discrimination.” Id. at 1026. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that it would “not grant a
new trial on the basis of legally irreconcilable general verdicts” because it had “found no
Supreme Court or Ninth Circuit cases in which an appellate court has directed the trial

MEMORANUDM DECISION AND ORDER – 4

court to grant a new trial due to inconsistencies between general verdicts.”2 Id. at 1035.
Similarly, in International Longshoremen’s Union v. Hawaiian Pineapple Co., 226 F.2d
875 (9th Cir. 1955), the Ninth Circuit held that legally inconsistent verdicts may “stand
on appeal even though inconsistent.” Id. at 881. The inconsistent general jury verdict in
that case held “the defendant unions liable while ‘exonerating the individual defendants’
who acted on behalf of the unions.” Zhang, 339 F.3d at 1035 (quoting Hawaiian
Pineapple, 226 F.2d at 881).
Hathaway takes issue with the following language from the Court’s decision:
Hathaway claims Idaho Pacific terminated him for multiple unlawful
reasons. Although each theory of liability is distinct, the factual basis for each
claim does overlap. When presented with all of the relevant evidence, a
second jury will be forced to consider whether Idaho Pacific terminated
Hathaway (1) because he complained about the incident report that formed
the basis of his workers’ compensation claim; (2) because he had a disability;
(3) because he sought disability privileges; (4) some combination of all of
these factors; or (5) some other valid reason. Thus, a second jury will be
forced to reconsider the factual basis for Hathaway’s wrongful discharge
claim and could potentially disagree with the first jury on that issue.
Dkt. 118, at 13. Hathaway argues that the Court’s comment that the second jury could
potentially disagree with the first jury is contrary to Zhang and Hawaiian Pineapple.
Zhang and Hawaiian Pineapple are not binding on the issue at hand as this case is
distinguishable. While the juries in Zhang and Hawaiian Pineapple delivered inconsistent
verdicts, the jury in this case failed to return a complete verdict. Although incomplete,

2

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) “does not specify the grounds on which a motion for a
new trial may be granted; instead, it allows such a motion to be granted ‘for any of the reasons
for which new trials have heretofore been granted in actions at law in the courts of the United
States.’” Zhang, 339 F.3d at 1035 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)).

MEMORANUDM DECISION AND ORDER – 5

nothing in the jury’s verdict in this case was inconsistent. Thus, this case presents a
different question than was at issue in Zhang and Hawaiian Pineapple, which did not
address potential inconsistencies between an original trial and a partial retrial. In addition,
Zhang and Hawaiian Pineapple involved general verdicts, while this case utilized a
special verdict. Zhang distinguished general and special verdicts noting that “[i]n the case
of a special verdict, inconsistencies are problematic and require a new trial . . . if they
arise between two or more factual findings.” 339 F.3d at 1037.
Moreover, in Zhang and Hawaiian Pineapple, the Ninth Circuit did not do what
Hathaway now asks the Court to do: reverse the district court’s decision to order a retrial
on all issues instead of ordering a partial retrial. The rules regarding retrial are not as cut
and dry as Hathaway would prefer. The Ninth Circuit has repeatedly acknowledged that
whether to grant a retrial on all or only some issues falls within the discretion of the
district court. Pumphrey v. K.W. Thompson Tool Co., 62 F.3d 1128, 1134 (9th Cir. 1995).
This is because a district court often has to base such a decision on imprecise
considerations such as whether a partial retrial will “cause[] confusion and uncertainty.”
Kalitta Air L.L.C. v. Cent. Texas Airborne Sys. Inc., 547 F. App’x 832, 833–34 (9th Cir.
2013) (citing Gasoline Prods. Co. v. Champlin Ref. Co., 283 U.S. 494, 500 (1931)).
Indeed, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that, in deciding whether to grant a full or
partial retrial, a district court must answer the nebulous question of whether “it clearly
appears that the issue to be retried is so distinct and separable from others that a trial of it
alone may be had without injustice.” Gasoline Products, 283 U.S. at 500. When it is not
clear, as in this case, the district court must order a full retrial. Id.
MEMORANUDM DECISION AND ORDER – 6

Hathaway has not convinced the Court that his multiple claims for unlawful
termination are “so distinct and separable” that retrial on only his ADA claims is
appropriate. Much of the evidence supporting Hathaway’s claims for unlawful
termination in violation of public policy also supports his ADA claims. When the claims
are so “closely related,” Pena v. Meeker, 435 F. App’x 602, 604 (9th Cir. 2011), and the
evidence is so inextricably intertwined, justice requires a retrial on all claims. Atl. Coast
Line R. Co. v. Bennett, 251 F.2d 934, 939 (4th Cir. 1958) (“In the instant cases we are
unable to say that the new trial can be restricted to the single issue without injustice to the
defendant, since the evidence relating to wilful misconduct is so inextricably tied up with
that relating to primary negligence that a fair trial upon either issue requires a trial of both
issues together.”); see also Fornicoia v. Haemonetics Corp., No. CIV.A. 99-1177, 2006
WL 197116, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 26, 2006) (finding plaintiff’s constructive discharge
claim and sexual harassment claim were “so interwoven [that one issue] cannot be
submitted to the jury independently of the [other issue] without confusion and
uncertainty, which would amount to denial of a fair trial”).
In sum, the Court did not clearly err in its prior ruling. The Court recognized the
appropriate standard⸺as outlined in Gasoline Prod. Co. v. Champlin Refining Co., 283
U.S. 494 (1931), and reaffirmed in Lies v. Farrell Lines, Inc., 641 F.2d 765 (9th Cir.
1981). The Court then properly applied that standard and exercised its discretion in
finding the issues were so “interwoven” that “a new trial as to all of the issues should be
ordered.” Lies, 641 F.2d at 774. Accordingly, the Court will not reconsider its prior
decision.
MEMORANUDM DECISION AND ORDER – 7

V. ORDER
It is HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Hathaway’s Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 119) is DENIED.

DATED: August 8, 2018
_________________________
David C. Nye
U.S. District Court Judge

MEMORANUDM DECISION AND ORDER – 8