Team Contractors, L.L.C. et al v. Waypoint NOLA, L.L.C. et al
Filing
420
ORDER AND REASONS - IT IS ORDERED that the 372 Motion to Amend Judgment filed by Plaintiff Team Contractors, L.L.C. ("Team"), construed as a motion for a new trial on its breach of contract claim against Defendant Waypoint NOLA, L.L.C. (& quot;Waypoint"), be and hereby is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court's 370 judgment for Defendant Waypoint on Plaintiff Team's breach of contract claim be and hereby is VACATED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Waypoint's 373 Motion for Attorney's Fees be and hereby is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
TEAM CONTRACTORS, L.L.C.,
Plaintiff
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 16-1131
WAYPOINT NOLA, L.L.C., ET AL.,
Defendants
SECTION: “E”(2)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Plaintiff Team Contractors, L.L.C.’s Motion to Amend
Judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 1 The motion is
opposed. 2 For the following reasons, the Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as a motion
for a new trial pursuant to Rule 49(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is ordered
that Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. The Court’s March 19, 2018 judgment for
Defendant Waypoint NOLA, L.L.C. on Team’s breach of contract claim is VACATED. 3
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On February 5, 2016, Plaintiff Team Contractors, L.L.C. (“Team”) filed a complaint
against Defendants HC Architecture, Inc. (“HCA”), KLG, L.L.C. (“KLG”), 4 and Waypoint
NOLA, L.L.C. (“Waypoint”). 5 Plaintiff Team alleged it entered into a construction contract
with Defendant Waypoint to construct and renovate portions of Waypoint’s property at
1250 Poydras St. in New Orleans. 6 Team alleged there were errors in the plans and
specifications provided by Waypoint for the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing
R. Doc. 372.
R. Doc. 385.
3 R. Doc. 370.
4 Defendant KLG informed the Court in its answer that it is now known as Salas O’Brien South, L.L.C. R.
Doc. 34. The parties continued to refer to it as KLG. The Court will continue to do so in this order.
5 R. Doc. 1.
6 Id. at 2, ¶ 7.
1
2
1
(“MEP”) systems relating to the construction project. 7 Team also alleged Waypoint
directed it to modify the MEP systems, but did not compensate Team for the additional
costs Team incurred as a result of the modifications. 8 Plaintiff Team brought a breach of
contract claim against Waypoint, alleging Waypoint’s failure to compensate Team
breached the construction contract. 9 Team brought a negligence claim against Waypoint,
alleging Waypoint was negligent in failing to “approve and/or process change order
proposals” for the MEP systems modifications. 10 Plaintiff Team also brought negligence
claims against Defendants HCA and KLG, alleging HCA and KLG breached their
professional duties of care by designing and approving the faulty MEP plans and
specifications. 11 All Plaintiff’s claims were brought pursuant to Louisiana law. 12
This Court conducted a jury trial in this matter from February 26, 2018 to March
9, 2018. There were three remaining claims at trial: Plaintiff Team’s breach of contract
claim against Defendant Waypoint and Team’s negligence claims against Defendants
HCA and KLG. 13 Team did not pursue a negligence claim against Waypoint at trial. 14 After
negotiations about the jury verdict form, the parties agreed to a verdict form with twelve
questions on the three claims. 15 The Court’s jury instructions laid out the elements of each
of the three claims. 16
On the negligence claims against Defendants HCA and KLG, the jury found their
conduct violated their professional duties of care, and their conduct caused damage to
Id. at 3, ¶ 16.
Id. at 4–5.
9 Id. at 5.
10 Id. at 5–6, ¶ 33.
11 Id. at 6–7.
12 Id.
13 R. Doc. 364.
14 Id.
15 Id.
16 R. Doc. 367.
7
8
2
Plaintiff Team. 17 On the breach of contract claim against Defendant Waypoint, the jury
checked “NO” when asked if it had “been shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
Waypoint breached the contract.” 18 The jury followed the instructions provided and left
blank the next question, which asked whether the breach “cause[d] damage to Team.” 19
The verdict awarded Team $565,979,99 in damages. 20 Although the jury found Waypoint
did not breach its contract, the jury assigned Waypoint and its agent responsibility for
damages. 21 When assigning “percentages of responsibility for the damages” awarded, the
jury assigned 30% to HCA, 60% to KLG, 5% to Waypoint, and 5% to Waypoint’s agent
Steve Laski, who was not a party to the suit. 22 No objections to the verdict were entered
before the jury was discharged. 23
On March 19, 2018, the Court entered judgment on the verdict against Defendants
HCA and KLG for $509,381.99, representing 90% of the total damages the jury
awarded. 24 The Court entered judgment in favor of Defendant Waypoint on the breach of
contract claim. 25
On April 2, 2018, Plaintiff Team filed a timely Motion to Amend the Judgment
pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 26 Team argues the jury’s
finding that Defendant Waypoint did not breach its contract with Team was irreconcilably
inconsistent with its assigning Waypoint and its agent responsibility for damages. 27 Team
R. Doc. 364 at 1, ¶ 1–4.
Id. at 2, ¶ 6.
19 Id. at 2, ¶ 6–7.
20 Id. at 3, ¶ 8.
21 Id. at 4, ¶ 9.
22 Id.
23 R. Doc. 410 at 9.
24 R. Doc. 370.
25 Id.
26 R. Doc. 372.
27 R. Doc. 372-1.
17
18
3
requests the Court amend the judgment and enter judgment against Waypoint. 28 On April
24, 2018, Defendant Waypoint filed its opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. 29 Waypoint
argues the verdict is clear, but does not address the jury’s assigning it responsibility for
damages. 30
At Plaintiff Team’s request, 31 the Court granted oral argument on the motion. 32
The hearing was held on June 12, 2018. 33 On June 19, 2018, both parties filed
supplemental memoranda. 34 On June 25, 2018, Team filed a post-hearing memorandum
in support of its Motion to Amend Judgment. 35 On July 5, 2018, Waypoint filed its
response. 36 On August 17, 2018, Waypoint filed further supplemental briefing addressing
whether the verdict form was a special verdict form or a general verdict form with special
interrogatories pursuant to Rule 49 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 37
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Team brings its motion to amend under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Rule 59(e) is not the appropriate vehicle to challenge the consistency of a jury
verdict. As a result, the Court construes Team’s motion as a motion for a new trial
pursuant to Rule 49 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court first addresses
whether the verdict was a special verdict under Rule 49(a) or a general verdict with
written questions under Rule 49(b). The Court then turns to the inconsistencies in the
jury verdict form. The Court concludes the jury’s finding Waypoint did not breach its
R. Doc. 372.
R. Doc. 385.
30 Id.
31 R. Doc. 375.
32 R. Doc. 378.
33 R. Doc. 398.
34 R. Docs. 399, 400.
35 R. Doc. 404.
36 R. Doc. 409.
37 R. Doc. 417.
28
29
4
contract is irreconcilable with its finding Waypoint liable for damages. As a result, the
Court grants a new trial on the limited issue of Waypoint’s alleged breach of contract.
I.
Rule 59(e) does not provide Team a remedy for an allegedly
inconsistent jury verdict.
Team moves to amend the Court’s judgment under Rule 59(e). 38 A Rule 59(e)
motion “calls into question the correctness of a judgment.” 39 To prevail on a Rule 59(e)
motion, the movant must establish at least one of the following: (1) an intervening change
in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence not previously available; or (3)
a manifest error in law or fact. 40 Team does not discuss any of these standards in its
motion or subsequent briefing. The only standard which possibly could apply to this case
is the third, i.e., whether inconsistencies in the jury verdict form amount to a manifest
error in law or fact.
“Manifest error” is one that “is plain and indisputable, and that amounts to a
complete disregard of the controlling law.” 41 Team cites no Fifth Circuit cases suggesting
jury verdict inconsistencies constitute a manifest error in law or fact. A motion pursuant
to Rule 59(e) is not the appropriate vehicle to remedy jury verdict inconsistencies. Rather,
the Fifth Circuit considers challenges to inconsistent jury verdicts under Rule 49 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 42 Rule 49 explicitly allows a trial court to grant a new
trial, 43 and the Fifth Circuit consistently remands cases with inconsistent verdicts for new
R. Doc. 372.
See, e.g., In re Transtexas Gas Corp., 303 F.3d 571, 581 (5th Cir. 2002).
40 Ross v. Marshall, 426 F.3d 745, 763 (5th Cir. 2005). See also Schiller v. Physicians Res. Grp., Inc., 342
F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003); Norris v. Causey, No. 14-1598, 2016 WL 311746, at *4 (E.D. La. Jan. 26,
2016).
41 See, e.g., Pechon v. La. Dep’t of Health and Hospitals, No. 08-0664, 2009 WL 2046766, at *4 (E.D. La.
July 14, 2009) (quoting Venegas-Hernandez v. Sonolux Records, 370 F.3d 183, 195 (1st Cir. 2004); Bank
One, Texas, N.A. v. F.D.I.C., 16 F. Supp. 2d 698, 713 (N.D. Tex. 1998) (“[A] manifest error is an obvious
mistake or departure from the truth.”) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
42 See, e.g., Blackwell v. Cities Serv. Oil Co., 532 F.2d 1006 (5th Cir. 1976); Stancill v. McKenzie Tank Lines,
Inc., 497 F.2d 529 (5th Cir. 1974).
43 FED. R. CIV. PRO. 49(b)(3)(C); 49(b)(4).
38
39
5
trials pursuant to Rule 49. 44 The Court construes Team’s Motion to Amend Judgment as
a Rule 49 motion for a new trial.
II.
The jury verdict is a special verdict pursuant to Rule 49(a).
Rule 49 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contemplates two types of jury
verdicts: special verdicts pursuant to Rule 49(a) and general verdicts with answers to
written questions pursuant to Rule 49(b). A special verdict form requires a jury to return
“a special written finding on each issue of fact,” and may consist of “written questions
susceptible of a categorical or other brief answer.” 45 A general verdict form allows a jury
to “render a general verdict” and may be accompanied by “written questions on one or
more issues of fact that the jury must decide.” 46 The Fifth Circuit has not laid out a bright
line rule to distinguish general and special verdicts. 47 As a result, district courts
categorizing a verdict as general or special reason by analogy to previous cases. 48
In McDaniel v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 49 the Fifth Circuit analyzed under Rule 49 a
verdict form including the following questions:
•
•
•
Did the negligence, if any, of those named below proximately cause the
injury in question?
For each person found by you to have caused the injury in question, find the
percentage caused by—[each party]
Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that on the occasion in
question that [one party’s] failure, if any, was negligent?
44 See, e.g., Blackwell, 532 F.2d 100 at 1008. Although the Rule 49 sections permitting a trial court to grant
a new trial are found only in Rule 49(b), the Fifth Circuit also remands Rule 49(a) cases with inconsistent
special verdicts to district court for new trials. See, e.g., Mercer v. Long MFG. N.C., Inc., 665 F.2d 61, 71
(5th Cir. 1980) (holding a Rule 49(a) case “must be remanded for a new trial.”).
45 FED. R. CIV. PRO. 49(a).
46 FED. R. CIV. PRO. 49(b)(1).
47 See Richard’s Paint and Body Shop, LLC v. BASF Corp., No. 11-560, 2012 WL 5399059 at *8 n.12
(W.D.Tex. Nov. 5, 2012) (“[T]he law regarding whether any particular question is properly characterized as
a ‘special’ or ‘general’ verdict is all over the board[;] . . . most verdicts simply do not fit well into either
category.”).
48 See, e.g., id.
49 987 F.2d 298 (5th Cir. 1993).
6
•
Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that such negligence, if
any, was a proximate cause of the Plaintiff's injuries? 50
The court concluded with little analysis the verdict form was a Rule 49(a) special verdict. 51
Like the Rule 49(a) special verdict in McDaniel, the verdict in this case did not simply
constitute a general finding in favor of one party. Rather, it included findings on the
factual issues of negligence and comparative fault.
In Wavelinq, Inc. v. JDS Lightwave Products Grp., Inc., 52 the Fifth Circuit held a
verdict with separate questions addressing different breach-of-contract theories and
separate damages attributable to each alleged breach to be a Rule 49(a) special verdict. 53
On the breach of contract claim against Waypoint, the jury specifically found Waypoint
did not breach the contract. 54 Like the Rule 49(a) special verdicts in Wavelinq, the verdict
included findings on the factual issue of breach of contract.
Because the jury verdict included separate factual findings on all claims, the Court
finds the verdict is a special verdict pursuant to Rule 49(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
Id. at 307.
Id. Similarly, in Guidry v. Kem Mfg. Co., 598 F.2d 402, 407–08 (5th Cir. 1979), the Fifth Circuit
concluded the following questions were part of a Rule 49(a) special verdict:
1. Was the product supplied by defendant Kem Manufacturing Company (Kem) defective, or
did defendant Kem breach its implied warranty or negligently fail to warn plaintiff, in a
manner which was a proximate cause of injury to plaintiff Mr. Guidry?
...
7. Was third-party defendant Kem Manufacturing Company actively negligent in a manner
which was a proximate cause of injury to plaintiff?
Id. at 404–05. The court in Guidry did not explain its conclusion at length, but noted “[t]he trial court
required the jury to return a special verdict . . . by answering separate interrogatories relating to the
plaintiff's against each defendant and additional questions arising out of the cross-claims.” Id. at 403–04.
52 289 Fed. Appx. 755, 2008 WL 3540200 at *2, 5 (5th Cir. Aug. 14, 2008) (unpublished opinion).
53 The Fifth Circuit has even found a verdict that required the jury to make separate findings as to liability
for breach of warranty, deceptive trade practices, and strict liability to be a special verdict form. Mercer,
665 F.2d at 64 n.8.
54 R. Doc. 364 at 2, ¶ 6.
50
51
7
III.
The verdict is irreconcilably inconsistent as to Waypoint.
Team moves for relief from the Court’s entry of judgment on an allegedly
inconsistent verdict. 55 In the Fifth Circuit, a party that fails to object to an inconsistent
jury verdict before the jury is discharged does not waive its right to object if the verdict is
a Rule 49(a) special verdict. 56 Team has not waived its right to object to inconsistencies
in the verdict. 57
“The test for determining whether jury answers to special verdicts are inconsistent
is well-established in this Circuit.” 58 The relevant inquiry is “whether the [jury’s] answers
may fairly be said to represent a logical and probable decision on the relevant issues as
submitted.” 59 The Court is “required under the Seventh Amendment to make a concerted
effort to reconcile apparent inconsistencies if at all possible.” 60 “The special verdicts ‘must
be construed in light of the surrounding circumstances’ of the case.” 61 The “constitutional
mandate to create consistency requires that [the Court] look beyond the face of the
interrogatories to the court’s instructions as well.” 62 Even when “[o]n the surface, there
R. Doc. 372.
See Mercer, 671 F.2d at 947 (“Neither FED. R. CIV. P. 49(a) nor the law of this Circuit has established any
such rule of waiver); Alverez v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., 674 F.2d 1037, 1040 (5th Cir. 1982) (same).
57 If the verdict is a general verdict pursuant to Rule 49(b), there is support in Fifth Circuit caselaw for the
proposition that a party need not object before the jury is discharged to preserve its right to object to a
general jury verdict inconsistent with special interrogatories. See Richard’s Paint and Body Shop, 2012 WL
5399059 at *2–5 (summarizing the conflicting cases). Compare Blackwell, 532 F.2d at 1008 (“When a case
is submitted to the jury in the form a general verdict with special interrogatories, if the answers to the
interrogatories are inconsistent with the verdict, the trial judge . . . may not enter judgment on a verdict
inconsistent with the interrogatories.”) with Stancill, 497 F.2d at 534 (“By failing to object to the form of
the verdict and answers at the time they were announced by the jury, both parties waived any objection to
inconsistencies under Rule 49(b).”). The language of FED. R. CIV. P. 49(b)(4) states a court considering
inconsistent answers “must direct the jury to further consider its answers and verdict, or must order a new
trial.” The language of Rule 49(b) does not contemplate waiver. The Court finds that, even if the verdict
were a general verdict under Rule 49(b), Team’s right to object has not been waived.
58 Mercer, 665 F.2d at 65.
59 Id. (quoting Griffin v. Matherne, 471 F.2d 911, 915 (5th Cir. 1973)).
60 Id. (citations omitted).
61 Ellis v. Weasler Eng’g Inc., 258 F.3d 326, 343 (5th Cir. 2001) (quoting Wright v. Kroeger Corp., 422 F.2d
176, 178 (5th Cir. 1970)).
62 Carr v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 312 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2002) (quoting Alverez, 674 F.2d at 1040).
55
56
8
appears to be no conflict” in the verdict, the Court may find an inconsistency when it looks
“to the actual instructions in the jury charge.” 63
Team’s only claim at trial against Waypoint was a breach of contract claim. The
jury instructions state:
“If Team has proved its breach of contract claim against Waypoint by a
preponderance of the evidence, [the jury] must determine the damages to
which Team is entitled under the contract . . . If Team is not entitled to
damages under the contract, or if Team gave up its right to recover such
damages, then Team cannot recover damages from Waypoint. 64
Despite these instructions, the jury found Waypoint did not breach the contract, but
found Waypoint and its agent were 10% responsible for damages. 65
In Dawson v. Gen. Motors Corp., 66 a jury given a Rule 49(a) special verdict form
found a defendant was not causally negligent, but found the same defendant 5%
responsible for the plaintiffs’ injuries. The Fifth Circuit was “simply unable to reconcile
the jury’s findings” and ordered a new trial. 67 Similar to the jury in Dawson, the jury in
this case found no breach of contract but assigned responsibility to Waypoint for
damages. The Court is simply unable to reconcile the jury’s findings as to Waypoint. 68
Mercer, 665 F.2d at 66.
R. Doc. 367 at 26.
65 R. Doc. 364 at 2, ¶ 6; 4, ¶ 9.
66 No. 94-40779, 1995 WL 17788765 (5th Cir. Aug. 18, 1995).
67 Id. at *1 (citing Bonin v. Tour West, Inc., 896 F.2d 1260, 1263 (10th Cir. 1990)); see also Richard v.
Firestone, 858 F.2d 1258 (5th Cir. 1988) (upholding a trial court’s resubmitting to the jury a Rule 49(b)
general verdict form that found a product did not cause a plaintiff’s injury but assigned the defendant 10%
of the fault).
68 Waypoint argues Smith v. Tidewater Marine Towing, Inc., 927 F.2d 838 (5th Cir. 1991) provides a
blueprint for reconciling the conflicting answers. Smith is inapposite. In Smith, the jury found a defendant
in a maritime personal injury case not negligent, but misunderstood the verdict form and erroneously
continued answering questions about damages. Id. at 842–43. The jury assigned percentages of
responsibility to two separate accidents, which the court found could be reconciled with its finding of lack
of liability. Id. In Smith, the jury’s answers reflected a consistent theory of the case: the defendant was not
negligent, but the plaintiff did suffer injuries from two accidents. Id. “The potential inconsistency obviously
arose from the jury’s misreading of the notes to the interrogatories.” Id. at 843. Unlike Smith, the jury’s
inconsistent verdicts in this case arose not from a misreading of the verdict form, but from confusion about
the case. The verdict cannot be reconciled.
63
64
9
The Court finds the jury’s findings on Team’s claim against Waypoint
irreconcilably inconsistent. As a result, Team’s Motion to Amend Judgment is construed
as a motion for new trial on the limited issue of Waypoint’s liability for breach of contract
and is GRANTED. 69 The judgment for Waypoint on Team’s breach of contract claim is
VACATED. 70
CONCLUSION
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Amend Judgment filed by Plaintiff Team
Contractors, L.L.C. (“Team”), construed as a motion for a new trial on its breach of
contract claim against Defendant Waypoint NOLA, L.L.C. (“Waypoint”), be and hereby is
GRANTED. 71
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court’s judgment for Defendant Waypoint
on Plaintiff Team’s breach of contract claim be and hereby is VACATED. 72
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Waypoint’s Motion for Attorney’s
Fees be and hereby is DENIED AS MOOT. 73
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 6th day of September, 2018.
________________________________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
R. Doc. 372.
R. Doc. 370.
71 R. Doc. 372.
72 R. Doc. 370.
73 R. Doc. 373.
69
70
10
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?