DWS International, Inc dba Marble Dimensions Worldwide, Inc v. Meixia Arts and Handicrafts Co LTD et al

Filing 329

ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING HOME CASUAL'S POST-TRIAL MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT, NEW TRIAL AND REMITTITUR (Doc. # 298 ). Signed by Judge Thomas M Rose on 9/21/2011. (mdf1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
DWS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
dba MARBLE DIMENSIONS
WORLDWIDE, INC.,
Case No. C-3:09-cv-458
Plaintiff,
Judge Thomas M. Rose
-vMEIXIA ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS,
CO., LTD., et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING HOME CASUAL’S POST-TRIAL
MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT, NEW TRIAL AND REMITTITUR (Doc.
#298)
______________________________________________________________________________
On July 8, 2011, a Jury of seven individuals unanimously found that Defendant Home
Casual, LLC (“Home Casual”) intentionally interfered with Plaintiff DWS International, Inc. dba
Marble Dimensions Worldwide’s (“MDW’s”) business relationship with Meixia Arts and
Handicrafts Co. Ltd. (“Meixia”) without justification. (Doc. #277.) The Jury awarded $1.5
million in compensatory damages, $250,000 in punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.
Home Casual now seeks judgment as a matter of law on MDW’s claim because the
release in the Settlement Agreement applies to MDW’s claim and because MDW failed to prove
interference. MDW also seeks judgment as a matter of law on the Jury’s award of punitive
damages. As more fully explained below, Home Casual is not entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.
In the alternative, Home Casual seeks a new trial on the Jury awards of compensatory
and punitive damages because the awards are against the weight of any reasonably certain

evidence. As more fully explained below, Home Casual is not entitled to a new trial.
Finally, Home Casual seeks remittitur of the Jury’s compensatory damage award because
it is beyond supportable proof and remittitur of the Jury’s punitive damage award because it is
excessive. As more fully explained below, Home Casual is not entitled to any remittitur.
Now before the Court is Home Casual’s post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of
law or for a new trial and/or for remittitur. (Doc. #298.) These Motions are now fully briefed and
ripe for decision.
Home Casual’s Motions are, in essence, three motions. Each will be addressed seriatim.
JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
Relevant Legal Provisions
Judgment as a matter of law, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50, is appropriate when “a party
has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a
reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue.” U.S. Diamond & Gold v. Julius Klein
Diamonds LLC, No. C-3-06-371, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44726 at *12 (S.D. Ohio May 13,
2009). “Said another way, judgment as a matter of law is appropriate ‘whenever there is a
complete absence of pleading or proof on an issue material to the cause of action or when no
disputed issues of fact exists such that reasonable minds would not differ.’” Id.(quoting Jackson
v. FedEx Corporate Services, Inc., 518 F.3d 388, 392 (6th Cir. 2008)). When a motion for
judgment as a matter of law is renewed after trial, as is the case here, a court may: (1) allow the
judgment on the verdict; (2) order a new trial; or (3) direct the entry of judgment as a matter of
law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b).
When considering a motion for judgment as a matter of law, “[t]he court reviews all

-2-

evidence and draws all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the party against whom
the judgment as a matter of law is being considered.” U.S. Diamond & Gold, U.S. Dist. LEXIS
44726 at *12. However, the court may not consider the credibility of witnesses or weigh the
evidence. Id. at *11. “A motion for judgment as a matter of law presents a question of law even
though a decision on such a motion requires consideration of the evidence.” Id. at *12.
Analysis
Home Casual argues that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the release
in the Settlement Agreement applied to MDW’s present claims. Prior to trial, the Court found
that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the release in the Settlement
Agreement applied to MDW’s claims in this matter. Further, evidence was introduced at trial
that the release in the Settlement Agreement did not apply to MDW’s claims in this matter.
Specifically, David Stegman, Sr., testified that it was his understanding that there was absolutely
no connection between the Posada recall, which resulted in the Settlement Agreement, and
MDW’s claims in this matter. (Trial Transcript (“TT”) 1513-14, 1612-14.) Thus, there was
evidence from which a reasonable juror could conclude that the release in the Settlement
Agreement does not apply to MDW’s present claims. Therefore, there was a legally sufficient
basis from which a juror could conclude that the release included in the Settlement Agreement
does not apply to the claims in this matter. Home Casual is not entitled to judgment as a matter
of law on this issue.
Home Casual also argues that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because MDW
failed to prove an act of interference by Home Casual and that any interference by Home Casual
was both justified and proper. However, there was evidence from which a reasonable juror could

-3-

conclude that Home Casual interfered with MDW’s business relationship with Meixia, without
justification to do so.
Evidence that Don Corning (“Corning”) discussed his plan to work directly with Meixia
in internal emails was introduced. Further, there was evidence that Corning told Meixia that
Stegman was “unbelievably untruthful,” claimed that MDW had made misleading and outright
false statements and asserted that MDW had not acted in good faith and had acted to avoid
responsibility. Also, there was evidence that, in exchange for a Home Casual partnership with
Meixia, Corning promised to open a $500,000 line of credit for Meixia and promised to purchase
between $5 million and $8 million of the GFRC tabletops in 2009 alone. Finally, there was
evidence introduced that Home Casual filed a collection action against MDW that provided a
reason for Meixia to terminate its relationship with MDW. Although Home Casual may have
presented evidence to the contrary, there is evidence from which a reasonable juror could
conclude that Home Casual interfered with MDW’s business relationship with Meixia without
justification to do so and it is for the Jury, and not the Court, to determine the credibility of the
evidence submitted.
Finally, Home Casual argues that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on MDW’s
punitive damages claim because there was no evidence of actual malice. Home Casual also
argues that the Jury was confused due to the difference in the definition of malice for purposes of
the conspiracy claim and the definition of malice for purposes of punitive damages.
Actual malice is defined by the Ohio Supreme Court as a state of mind characterized by
hatred, ill will or a spirit of revenge or a conscious disregard for the rights and safety of another
person that has a great probability of causing substantial harm. This is the definition that was

-4-

provided to the Jury in the “Punitive Damages and Attorneys’ Fees” section of the Jury
Instructions, and presumably the Jury is able to follow the instructions given.
As for evidence, MDW presented emails from which a reasonable juror could conclude
that Home Casual actually expressed malice as defined for punitive damages purposes. MDW
presented emails in which Corning stated he wanted to “screw” MDW and that he was not a fan
of Stegman’s. MDW also presented other emails in which employees of Home Casual discussed
wanting to cut MDW out of the relationship with Meixia. Finally, MDW presented evidence that
Corning referred to Stegman as a “piece of shit.” Apparently the Jury believed what Corning said
in his emails instead of what he said on the witness stand and it is not for the Court to weigh
credibility.
Conclusion
In this case, MDW has been fully heard on its intentional-interference claim and for
punitive damages therefore and there is a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury
to have found for MDW on that claim and the punitive damages therefore. As a result, Home
Casual’s post-trial Motion for Judgment As a Matter of Law is OVERRULED.
NEW TRIAL
Legal Provisions
A new trial may be granted “in any action in which there has been a trial by jury, for any
of the reasons for which new trials have heretofore been granted in actions at law in the courts of
the United States. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a). In this case, there has been a trial by jury and Home
Casual seeks a new trial because the award of compensatory damages and the award of punitive
damages were erroneous.

-5-

Courts have granted new trials when the jury has reached a “seriously erroneous result.”
Thomas & Marker Construction Co. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 3:06-cv-406, 2009 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 40148 at *18 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 27, 2009). A “seriously erroneous result” is evidenced by:
(1) the verdict being against the weight of the evidence; (2) the damages being excessive; or (3)
the trial being unfair to the moving party in some fashion such as the proceedings being
influenced by prejudice or bias. Id. at *18-19. Thus, Home Casual has identified a proper legal
basis for seeking a new trial.
When considering a motion for a new trial because the verdict is against the weight of the
evidence, the court may not set aside the jury verdict because the court believes that another
outcome is more justified. Denhof v. City of Grand Rapids, 494 F.3d 534, 543 (6th Cir. 2007).
The jury’s verdict must be accepted “if it is one which reasonably could have been reached.”
Id.(citing Duncan v. Duncan, 377 F.2d 49, 52 (6th Cir. 1967)). Thus, the court may not substitute
its judgment of the facts and the credibility of the witnesses for that of the jury. Id.(citing
Duncan, 377 F.2d at 54).
Analysis
Home Casual argues that the jury award of compensatory and punitive damages is against
the weight of any reasonably certain evidence. It argues that the compensatory damages award is
against the weight of the evidence due to MDW’s expert, Richard Eichmann’s (“Eichmann’s”),
calculations. This argument has already been fully briefed and decided by the Court. The Court
determined that “whether or not MDW can demonstrate the existence of lost profits with
reasonable certainty is for the finder of fact and not the Court.”
Eichmann was permitted to testify. Home Casual did not offer its own expert opinion.

-6-

Home Casual was permitted to fully cross-examine Eichmann as to his calculations and
to argue to the Jury as to why it thought Eichmann’s calculations were faulty. Eichmann testified
that MDW was damaged in an amount exceeding $7.9 million. (TT 765.) Eichmann’s damage
estimate was composed of several different scenarios including $2.3 million if MDW had not
been granted exclusivity. The Jury awarded $1.5 million which is not against the weight of the
evidence, excessive or unfair to Home Casual. Thus, a new trial on this basis is not warranted.
Home Casual also argues that the punitive damage award is seriously erroneous because
it is unreasonable and against the weight of the evidence. The punitive damage award is
unreasonable and against the weight of the evidence, according to Home Casual, because the
jury was “likely” confused about two varieties of malice. However, as discussed above, the jury
instruction regarding punitive damages and the required showing of malice was clear. If Home
Casual thought there could be confusion, Home Casual could have and should have addressed
the issue in its closing argument.
Conclusion
Home Casual has not shown that the Jury in this matter reached a “clearly erroneous
result.” Therefore, Home Casual is not entitled to a new trial.
REMITTITUR
A court may grant remittitur of a damages award when the award clearly exceeds the
maximum amount that a jury could reasonably find. Benaugh v. Ohio Civil Rights Commission,
278 F. App’x 501, 513 (6th Cir. 2008). An award must fall if, for example, it is “beyond the
range supportable by proof” or is “the result of a mistake.” Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Justin
Combs Publishing, 507 F.3d 470, 484 (6th Cir. 2007)(citing Gregory v. Shelby County, 220 F.3d

-7-

433, 443 (6th Cir. 2000)).
Home Casual argues that the award of compensatory damages should be remitted to
$100,000, at most, because it is beyond supportable proof and exceeds what the evidence will
support. However, as set forth above, the compensatory damage award is not against the weight
of the evidence, excessive or unfair to Home Casual, and will, thus, not be remitted.
Home Casual also argues that the award of punitive damages should be remitted because
it is grossly excessive in light of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment’s
prohibition against grossly excessive or arbitrary punishment. However, the punitive damage
award of $250,000, as set forth above, is not against the weight of the evidence, excessive or
unfair to Home Casual. Further, the ratio of this punitive damage award to the compensatory
damages award of $1.5 million is 0.167. Such a ratio does not violate the Due Process Clause.
SUMMARY
Home Casual is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on MDW’s intentional
interference claim. Nor is Home Casual entitled to a new trial or a remittitur of the compensatory
or punitive damages awarded by the Jury. Thus, Home Casual’s Post-Trial Motions for
Judgment, New Trial and Remittitur (doc. #298) are OVERRULED.
DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Twenty-First Day of September, 2011.
s/Thomas M. Rose
________________________________
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATED DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record

-8-