Bettis et al v. Hall et al
Filing
156
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 150 Defendants' Joint Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Motion for New trial; denying 151 Plaintiffs' Motion for New Trial on Issue of Damages. Signed by District Judge Julie A. Robinson on 6/28/2012. (pp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
GARY HALL, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)
TONY BETTIS, et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-2457-JAR
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiffs Tony Bettis, Eric Comeau, Stephen Seat, and National Realty Capital, LLC
(“NRC”) sued Defendants Gary L. Hall, Bentley Investments of Nevada, LLC (“Bentley”), and
the Gary L. Hall Revocable Trust U/T/A/ Dated 11/16/89 (“Trust”) under breach of contract and
quantum meruit. At issue were profits Plaintiffs alleged Defendants owed them under the
Funding Agreement created by Plaintiffs Bettis, Comeau, Seat, and Defendant Hall to govern
distributions of cash revenues from real estate investment projects that Plaintiffs found for
Defendant Hall. At trial, the jury heard evidence on Plaintiffs’ only remaining claim—their
breach of contract claim against Defendant Hall—and returned a verdict for Plaintiffs in the
amount of $302,000.00.
The matter currently comes before the Court on Defendants’ Joint Motion for Judgment
as a Matter of Law and Motion for a New Trial (Doc. 150) and Plaintiffs’ Motion for New Trial
on Issue of Damages (Doc. 151). Defendants’ motion argues that no legally sufficient evidence
supports a jury award of damages for the Grand Lodge or SWAT 14 projects. Plaintiffs argue
for a new trial by asserting that the Court erred when it excluded Plaintiffs’ damages
calculations. Both motions are fully briefed, and the Court is prepared to rule. As explained
more fully below, the Court denies all of the motions.
I.
Background
After Plaintiffs Bettis, Comeau, Seat, and NRC filed this action against Defendants Hall,
Bentley, and Trust for breach of contract and quantum meruit, Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss. The Court granted the motion in part, dismissing the quantum meruit claim against
Defendant Hall and the breach of contract claims against Defendants Bentley and Trust.
The parties then filed cross motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs filed their motion
seeking summary judgment on the proper interpretation of the Funding Agreement. Defendants
filed their motion seeking summary judgment on all claims against them. The Court denied
Plaintiffs’ motion finding Defendants’ interpretation of the Funding Agreement proper. The
Court then granted Defendants’ motion in part and denied it in part. The Court granted
Defendant Trust’s motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ quantum meruit claim. The
Court also determined that as a matter of law under the proper interpretation of the Funding
Agreement, Plaintiffs were not entitled to profits on their claims for the Weibel-RBND and
Morley SWAT projects and so the Court granted Defendants summary judgment on those two
claims. As for the remaining claims, on the record before it, the Court could not determine
whether Plaintiffs were entitled to profits on the Shorefox, Grand Elk, Morley Companies
Family Development (“MCFD”), SWAT 15, Porchlight, and Grand Lodge projects, and so the
Court denied Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on those claims. The Court, however,
explained how the parties should apply the Funding Agreement to determine the profits of the
remaining projects. The Court directed the parties to meet and confer to determine what amount
2
of profits, if any, Defendants owed Plaintiffs. The Court also directed the parties to present a
clear and concise explanation of the distribution of cash revenues for each remaining project to
the Court at trial.
The parties were unable to come to a consensus over the profits for the remaining
projects, and in their proposed trial exhibits, both parties had separate calculations of profits. On
March 19, 2012, Defendants filed a motion to exclude Plaintiffs’ new damages calculations. The
Court granted in part Defendants’ motion to exclude because Plaintiffs’ damages calculations
included claims that had been dismissed through summary judgment. Plaintiffs then filed a
motion for reconsideration of the Order on the motion to exclude and the Memorandum and
Order on the summary judgment motions. The Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion.
At trial, through the testimony of Steven Seat and Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 19, Plaintiff
introduced evidence of damages that totaled $591,110.69. In the damage calculation excluded
by the Court, proffered as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 18, Plaintiffs’ totaled their damages at
$1,018,267.94.
At the close of evidence, Defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law, which the
Court took under advisement. The jury returned a verdict against Defendant Hall in the amount
of $302,000.00 in a general verdict form. The Court denied Defendants’ motion for judgment as
a matter of law and entered judgment against Defendants Hall, Bentley and Trust.
Defendants filed the instant motion, renewing their motion for judgment as a matter of
law and, in the alternate, requesting a new trial. Plaintiffs filed a motion for new trial on the
issue of damages, arguing that the Court erred when excluding the damages calculations
included in Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 18.
3
II.
Rule 60: Corrections Based on Clerical Mistakes; Oversights and Omissions
Before examining the parties’ motions, the Court needs to correct a clerical mistake in
the Judgment. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a), “[t]he court may correct a clerical
mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment,
order, or other part of the record.” Judgment was entered against Defendants Hall, Bentley, and
Trust. Judgment should have not have been entered against Defendants Bentley and Trust and
instead should have only been entered against Defendant Hall.
The Court’s February 14, 2012 Memorandum and Order granted Defendant Trust
summary judgment on all of Plaintiffs’ remaining claims against it. The only claim that survived
summary judgment against Defendant Bentley was Plaintiffs’ claim for quantum meruit. On the
morning before trial began, Plaintiffs withdrew their quantum meruit claim. Therefore, the only
claim submitted to the jury was Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim against Defendant Hall. As
such, the jury instructions and jury verdict only included Defendant Hall. And the jury only
returned a verdict against Defendant Hall. Judgment, therefore, should have been entered only
against Defendant Hall. The Court thus corrects the Judgment by entering a nunc pro tunc
Judgment against Defendant Hall only.
II.
Standards
A.
Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law
A court may grant a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 50(b) if “the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally
sufficient evidentiary basis to find for a party on that issue.”1 “Judgment as a matter of law is
1
Fed. R. Civ. P. 50.
4
appropriate only if the evidence points but one way and is susceptible to no reasonable
inferences which may support the opposing party’s position.”2 In other words, the Court must
find that more than a mere scintilla of evidence favors the non-moving party.3 In examining the
evidence, the Court must construe all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party.4 The Court must not make any credibility determinations, weigh the evidence, or
substitute its judgment for that of the jury.5 If, after examining the evidence, the Court finds that
the trial contained evidence upon which a jury could have properly returned a verdict against the
movant, the Court must deny the motion for judgment as a matter of law.6
B.
Motion for New Trial
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a), a court may grant a new trial on all or some
of the issues on motion of a party. Motions for new trial are committed to the sound discretion
of the district court.7 Courts do not regard motions for new trial with favor and only grant them
with great caution.8
“If ‘a new trial motion asserts that the jury verdict is not supported by evidence, the
verdict must stand unless it is clearly, decidedly, or overwhelmingly against the weight of the
2
Tyler v. RE/MAX Mountain States, Inc., 232 F.3d 808, 812 (10th Cir. 2000).
3
Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Meraj Int’l Inv. Corp., 315 F.3d 1271, 1278 (10th Cir. 2003) (quoting Oja
v. Howmedica, Inc., 111 F.3d 782, 792 (10th Cir. 1997)).
4
Tyler, 232 F.3d at 812 (citing Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prod., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000)).
5
Id.; Rocky Mountain Christian Church v. Bd. of Cnty. Commr’s, 613 F.3d 1229, 1235 (10th Cir. 2010).
6
See Cooper v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 836 F.2d 1544, 1547 (10th Cir. 1988).
7
See Unit Drilling Co. v. Enron Oil & Gas Co., 108 F.3d 1186, 1193 (10th Cir. 1997).
8
Franklin v. Thompson, 981 F.2d 1168, 1171 (10th Cir. 1992).
5
evidence.’”9 The Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
party, “bearing in mind that ‘[t]he jury . . . has exclusive function of appraising credibility,
determining the weight to be given to the testimony, drawing inferences from the facts
established, resolving conflicts in the evidence, and reaching ultimate conclusions of fact.’”10 If
a new trial motion is based on an error at trial, the court must not grant the motion unless the
error prejudiced the party’s substantive rights.11
III.
Discussion
A.
Defendants’ Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and New Trial
Defendants combine their motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial,
arguing that the jury’s award of damages on the Grand Lodge and SWAT 15 projects lacked a
legally sufficient evidentiary basis and went against the weight of the evidence. For Defendants’
motion for judgment as a matter of law, the Court must determine whether there was evidence
upon which the jury could have properly returned the damages award of $302,000.00. And
because Defendants’ motion for new trial asserts that the jury’s damage award is not supported
by evidence, the Court must determine whether the jury’s damage award is clearly, decidedly, or
overwhelmingly against the weight of the evidence.
The Court finds that it must deny both motions because even assuming Defendants’
arguments are true, Defendants do not meet their burden for a new trial or judgment as a matter
9
M.D. Mark, Inc. v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 565 F.3d 753, 762–63 (10th Cir. 2009) (quoting Anaeme v.
Diagnostek, Inc., 164 F.3d 1275, 1284 (10th Cir. 1999)).
10
Snyder v. City of Moab, 354 F.3d 1179, 1187–88 (quoting United Int’l Holdings, Inc. v. Wharf (Holdings)
Ltd., 210 F.3d 1207, 1227 (10th Cir. 2000)).
11
See Henning v. Union Pac. R.R., 530 F.3d 1206, 1216–17 (10th Cir. 2008) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 61).
6
of law. The problem with Defendants’ argument over the insufficiency or lack of evidence for
damages based on Grand Lodge and SWAT 15 is that the Court has no way to know whether the
jury awarded Plaintiffs damages based on the Grand Lodge and SWAT 15 projects. Unpaid
profits on the Grand Lodge and SWAT 15 projects were not the only damages that Plaintiffs
sought. Using Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 19, Plaintiff Seat testified about the amount of profits
Defendant Hall still owed to Plaintiffs on a number of projects. Plaintiff Seat testified, and
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 19 showed, that Defendant Hall still owed Plaintiffs unpaid profits of
$78,779.12 from the Shorefox project, $102,472.82 from the Grand Elk project, $5,957.37 from
the SWAT 15 project, $115,763.03 from the Grand Lodge projects, $75,743.08 in interest on all
the profit due from those projects, and $212,395.27 for brokerage fees. Total, Plaintiffs asked
the jury for damages in the amount of $591,110.69. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the
Plaintiffs in the amount of $302,000.00. The verdict did not indicate how the jury arrived at its
decision or on which projects Plaintiffs were owed profits; it merely stated: “We, the jury,
impaneled and sworn in the above entitled case, upon our oaths, do find for Plaintiffs and assess
Plaintiffs’ damages in the sum of $302,000.00.”
Thus, even assuming that Defendants are correct and that there was no sufficient
evidence to support an award of damages for the Grand Lodge or SWAT 15 projects, Defendants
cannot show that the verdict is “clearly, decidedly, or overwhelmingly against the weight of the
evidence” to meet their burden for a new trial. On the contrary, “evidence was before the jury
upon which it could properly find against the movant” even if Grand Lodge and SWAT 15 were
taken out of the calculation. The jury could have awarded Plaintiffs $302,000.00 without
awarding any damages for the SWAT 15 and Grand Lodge projects. For example, the total
7
request for damages on the Shorefox and Grand Elk projects plus the brokerage fees totaled
$393,647.21. The jury’s award of damages thus could have been based only on the Shorefox and
Grand Elk projects and the brokerage fees. Defendants have not argued that the trial lacked
sufficient evidence for damages based on Shorefox, Grand Elk, or the brokerage fees. As a
result, the Court cannot find that Defendants have proved that the verdict is clearly, decidedly, or
overwhelming against the weight of the evidence. Instead, the Court finds that the trial
contained evidence upon which a jury could have properly returned a verdict with a damage
award of $302,000.00. The Court therefore denies Defendants’ motion for new trial and motion
for judgment as a matter of law.
C.
Plaintiffs’ Motion for a New Trial
Plaintiffs argue that the Court should grant a new trial on the issue of damages because
the Court improperly excluded evidence of Plaintiffs’ damages calculations. Because Plaintiffs’
motion is based on an alleged error at trial, the Court must first determine whether it erred in
excluding the evidence, and if so, the Court must then determine whether the error prejudiced
Plaintiffs’ substantive rights. Here, the Court finds no error in its decision to exclude Plaintiffs’
damages calculations, proffered at trial as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 18. The damages calculations in
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 18 included a claim for damages on the Weibel-RBND and Morley-SWAT
projects. The Court granted Defendants’ summary judgment on those claims. Thus,
introduction of evidence claiming damages on the Weibel-RBND and Morley-SWAT projects
would have been improper. Additionally, in the Court’s Memorandum and Order on the parties’
summary judgment motions, the Court explained how to apply the proper interpretation of the
Funding Agreement to calculate the Plaintiffs’ damages. Plaintiffs’ damages calculations in
8
Exhibit 18 did not follow the Court’s Memorandum and Order. Thus, exclusion was proper. As
such, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ Motion for New Trial because Plaintiffs have not identified any
error at trial.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Defendants’ Joint Motion for
Judgment as a Matter of Law and Motion for New Trial (Doc. 150) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for New Trial on Issue of
Damages (Doc. 151) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 28, 2012
S/ Julie A. Robinson
JULIE A. ROBINSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?