Everest Stables, Inc. v. Jester et al

Filing 99

ORDER DENYING Everest's motion 94 to amend jury verdict & AFFIRMING jury verdict 91 92 of 9/8/16. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 12/8/16. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
EVEREST STABLES, INC.,

:
:
Plaintiff
:
:
v.
:
:
MICHAEL JESTER, PENN RIDGE
:
FARMS, LLC, and THOMAS REIGLE, :
:
Defendants
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-CV-1631
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 8th day of December, 2016, upon consideration of the motion
(Doc. 94) filed by plaintiff Everest Stables, Inc. (“Everest”) to amend the verdict
entered on September 8, 2016, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e),
FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e), and the court noting that that Rule 59(e) is a device of limited
utility and the relief contemplated therein should only be granted when the moving
party establishes either “(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the
availability of new evidence . . . ; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact
or to prevent manifest injustice,” Mack’s Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669,
677 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d
1184, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995)), and it appearing that the decision to amend a judgment
rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, see Greenleaf v. Garlock, 174
F.3d 352, 363-64 (3d Cir. 1999), but that the court’s power to grant such relief is
limited to circumstances “where a miscarriage of justice would result if the verdict
were to stand,” Gagliardo v. Connaught Labs., Inc., 311 F.3d 565, 572 (3d Cir. 2002),
and that such relief is to be granted “sparingly,” D’Angio v. Borough of Nescopeck,

56 F. Supp. 2d 502, 504 (M.D. Pa. 1999), and that a motion to alter judgment is not
“an opportunity for a party to present previously available evidence or new
arguments,” Federico v. Charterers Mut. Assurance Ass’n Ltd., 158 F. Supp. 2d 565,
577 (E.D. Pa. 2001) (quoting F.D.I.C. v. Parkway Exec. Office Ctr., No. 96-121, 1997
WL 611674, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 24, 1997)); see also e-LYNXX Corp. v.
Innerworkings, Inc., No. 1:10-CV-2535, 2014 WL 496089, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 6,
2014), and the court observing that Everest’s motion presents a new argument, to
wit: that the timing and sequence of the respective breaches of contract in the case
sub judice are relevant to a finding of damages, (Doc. 95 at 6-7; Doc. 98 at 4-6), and
the jury therefore ignored the court’s instruction concerning mutuality of
agreement1 in a clear error of law, (Doc. 95 at 8), and the court finding that the jury
instruction in question applies to factual circumstances where one party has
breached the contract, and the jury clearly found that both parties had breached
the contract by awarding both parties damages, (see Doc. 91), and the court
concluding that Everest thus fails to satisfy the exacting standards of review
articulated herein, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1

Everest contends the jury ignored the following jury instruction: “If you
find that the parties had a mutual agreement where each party’s performance was
dependent on the other’s, and one party failed to perform its part, the other may
treat the contract as breached, and further performance by the nonbreaching party
is excused.” See PA. SUGGESTED STANDARD CIV. JURY INSTRUCTIONS § 19.70 (2013).
2

1.

Everest’s motion (Doc. 94) to amend the jury’s verdict is DENIED.

2.

The jury verdict (Docs. 91-92) of September 8, 2016 is affirmed.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania