Freeman v. MH Equipment Company

Filing 99

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (See Full Order) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant MH Equipment Company's Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law 89 is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 11/17/16. (EAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JAMES MATTHEW FREEMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
MH EQUIPMENT COMPANY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:15 CV 1473 CDP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This action came before the Court on plaintiff James Matthew Freeman’s
claim of breach of contract for defendant MH Equipment Company’s failure to pay
him commissions that it owed him under a commission agreement. The matter was
tried to a jury, who returned a verdict in Freeman’s favor and awarded him $25,368.
The jury also returned a verdict in Freeman’s favor on MH Equipment’s
counterclaim for unjust enrichment. MH Equipment has renewed its motion for
judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b), claiming that it is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law on its affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction as
well as on its counterclaim. I will deny the motion.
Judgment as a Matter of Law
I denied MH Equipment’s motions for judgment as a matter of law at the close
of Freeman’s case, and again at the close of all the evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a).

In its renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, MH Equipment contends that
it is entitled to judgment on its affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction
because Freeman failed to present any evidence contrary to MH Equipment’s proof
that satisfied all elements of the defense. Because of its undisputed proof of accord
and satisfaction, MH Equipment argues that Freeman was precluded from
proceeding on his breach of contract claim and, further, that it necessarily follows
that Freeman was unjustly enriched by his retention of a later-made payment by MH
Equipment. MH Equipment thus claims that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law on its affirmative defense, which then leads to judgment as a matter of law on its
counterclaim of unjust enrichment.
A motion for judgment as a matter of law should be granted only if the jury's
verdict is utterly lacking in evidentiary support. In re Prempro Prods. Liab. Litig.,
586 F.3d 547, 571 (8th Cir. 2009). When deciding a Rule 50 motion, I must
construe the evidence most favorably to the prevailing party and draw all inferences
in his favor, denying the motion “if reasonable persons could differ as to the
conclusions to be drawn from the evidence.” Western Am., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. and
Sur. Co., 915 F.2d 1181, 1183 (8th Cir. 1990). I may not make credibility
determinations or weigh the evidence. In re Prempro, 586 F.3d at 572 (citing
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000)). Under
these standards, MH Equipment’s motion must be denied.
-2-

Freeman presented sufficient evidence during the trial to counter MH
Equipment’s affirmative defense and to support the jury verdict. The evidence, in
its totality and after review, supports the jury's conclusion that MH Equipment
breached its contract with Freeman, that the breach damaged Freeman, and that
Freeman was entitled to recover for this breach given that, while he accepted the
$48,712 payment from MH Equipment, he did not accept it knowing it was full
satisfaction of MH Equipment’s obligation under the commission agreement. With
respect to this defense of accord and satisfaction, the jury was presented with
exhibits and conflicting witness testimony about what Freeman understood the
$48,712 paid by MH Equipment to be, whether he considered it to fully satisfy the
amount of commission he was owed under the agreement, and whether he knew at
the time of payment that it constituted full satisfaction of this obligation. Because
reasonable persons could differ as to the conclusions to be drawn from the evidence,
I must deny the motion.
Finally, I previously denied MH Equipment’s motion for summary judgment
on this issue, as well as its motions for judgment as a matter of law at trial. Nothing
presented by MH Equipment in its present motion changes my previous conclusion
or serves as a basis for disturbing the jury's verdict.
For these reasons, the renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law will be
denied.
-3-

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant MH Equipment Company’s
Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law [89] is DENIED.

_______________________________
CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this 17th day of November, 2016.

-4-