Sedgewick Homes, LLC v. Stillwater Homes, Inc. et al

Filing 221

ORDER denying 203 Motion for New Trial. Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 6/19/2019. (tmg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
5:16CV49
SEDGEWICK HOMES, LLC,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
STILLWATER HOMES, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon the Plaintiff’s Motion for a New Trial. Sedgewick
filed claims against Stillwater for copyright infringement, Lanham Act reverse passing off, North
Carolina statutory unfair and deceptive trade practices (“UDTP”), and unfair competition. The
Court denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment, and a jury trial was held. After
Sedgewick’s case in chief, the Court granted in part Stillwater’s Rule 50 motion, leaving the
copyright infringement claim. The jury returned a verdict finding that Plaintiff owned a valid
copyright; Stillwater had access to Plaintiff’s work and there is substantial similarity between the
Quail Valley and the Trent; and the Trent plan was created independently by Stillwater.
Plaintiff seeks a new trial, arguing that the jury instructions and jury verdict, particularly
as to direct copying, striking similarity, and a rebuttal to independent creation, resulted in a
verdict against the clear weight of the evidence; the Bivins’ and Shoemakers’ status as
Defendants and the entry of Sedgewick’s Vice President into the Shoemaker home were
irrelevant and improperly exploited by Stillwater to inflame and prejudice the jury against
Sedgewick; and the Lanham Act and UDTP practices claims were improperly dismissed as a
matter of law.

1

When a court considers a motion for a new trial, “a trial judge may weigh the evidence
and consider the credibility of the witnesses, and if he finds the verdict is against the clear weight
of the evidence, is based on false evidence or will result in a miscarriage of justice, he must set
aside the verdict, even if supported by substantial evidence, and grant a new trial.” Chesapeake
Paper Products Co. v. Stone & Webster Eng'g Corp., 51 F.3d 1229, 1237 (4th Cir. 1995)
(internal quotation omitted)). Even in weighing the evidence for a motion for a new trial, the
determination of witness credibility is solely for the jury and will only be disturbed in the most
exceptional circumstances. Bailey v. Kennedy, 2004 WL 3259000, at *7 (W.D.N.C. July 16,
2004), aff'd, 120 Fed. Appx. 501 (4th Cir. 2005). When a new trial is sought on the basis of an
error in the jury charge, “[i]nstructions will be considered adequate if construed as a whole, and
in light of the whole record, [they] adequately [inform] the jury of the controlling legal principles
without misleading or confusing the jury to the prejudice of the objecting party.” Rowland v.
American Gen. Fin., Inc., 340 F.3d 187, 191 (4th Cir. 2003). (citation and quotation marks
omitted). Moreover, when a new trial is sought based on evidentiary errors by the court,
“[s]ubstantial errors in the ‘admission or rejection of evidence’ may support a new trial.”
Daugherty v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 5:14-cv-24506, 2016 WL 6650856, at *2
(S.D.W.Va. Oct. 12, 2016) (quoting Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Duncan, 311 U.S. 243, 251
(1940)).
The Court has carefully considered the arguments raised by the Plaintiff and finds that the
verdict in this case was not against the clear weight of the evidence, was not based on false
evidence, and will not result in a miscarriage of justice. Both the jury instructions and the jury
verdict form were adequate to convey the proper legal principles to the jury. Likewise, the Court
finds no merit in Plaintiff’s arguments that the Lanham Act and UDTPA claims were improperly

2

dismissed or that the Court improperly admitted evidence regarding the suits against the
individuals and Matt Evan’s entry into the Shoemaker’s home. Accordingly,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for a New Trial is hereby
DENIED.
Signed: June 19, 2019

3