MARTIK BROTHERS, INC. v. HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK

Filing 177

ORDER denying 172 Motion for New Trial. Signed by Judge Arthur J. Schwab on 5/20/10. (mjl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MARTIK BROTHERS, INC., PLAINTIFF, v. HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK, DE F E N D A N T . M E M O R A N D U M ORDER
B e f o r e the Court is defendant Huntington National Bank's (HNB") Motion for a New Trial p u r s u a n t to Rule 59 (Doc. No. 172), seeking a new trial on damages or, in the alternative, remitting the damages awarded by the j u r y. Alt h o u g h this Court sits in diversity, federal law governs the issue of whether to order a remittitur or new trial on damages. See Brayman v. 99 West, Inc., 116 F.Supp.2d 225, 230 (D.Mass.2000). The ordering of a new trial under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59 is a disfavored remedy, as "such an action effects a denigration of the jury system" because it is the trier of the facts. Lind v. Schenley Indus., Inc., 278 F.2d 79, 90 (3d Cir.1960) (en banc - - t o the extent that new trials are granted "the judge takes over ... the prime function of the jury"). M o t io n s for new trial are seldom granted, especially w h e n the asserted ground is insufficiency of evidence and the subject matter is not particularly complex and deals with m a t e r ia l which is familiar and simple. See id. at 9 0 - 9 1. T he party c h a l l e n g i n g the verdict bears a heavy burden of showing that the verdict is against the weight of the e v i d e n c e and that "a miscarriage of justice would result if the verdict were to stand." Klein v. Hollings, 992 F.2d 1285, 1290 (3d Cir.1993).

08cv0083 Electronically Filed

HNB argues in the alternative that the Court should grant a remittitur in this case due to the excessiveness of t he damages awarded a n d a lack of evidence to support the amount of t he award. R e m i t t it u r is appropriate if the Court "finds that a decision of the jury i s clearly unsupported and/or excessive." Spence v. Board of Educ. of Christina Sch. Dist., 806 F.2d 1 1 9 8 , 1201 (3d Cir.1986); 11 Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 2815 (1995); McDermott v. Party City Corp., 11 F.Supp.2d 612, 620 (E.D.Pa.1998). If remittitur is granted, the party a g a i n s t whom it is entered can accept it or can proceed to a new trial on the issue of damages. McDermott, 11 F.Supp.2d at 620; 11 Wright Miller & Kane § 2815 at 160. T h e Court has carefully c o n s i d e r e d the motion for new trial o r for remittitur, the briefs in support and in opposition thereto, the supporting materials and the record in this case, including the special verdict form and the Court's instructions to the jury on damages, and finds t ha t the jury's verdict is neither excessive nor is it u n s u p p o r t e d by the evidence. To the contrary, the jur y verdict was certainly within the fair range of damages resulting from HNB's negligent misrepresentation. T h e jury's damage award fairly compensates Martik for the losses that it sustained as a result of HNB's negligent conduct and puts Martik in the position that it would have occupied if HNB had not made the misrepresentation that there was adequate funding to pay fo r all of Martik's work it thereafter performed under the contracts with K i e b l e r Slippery Rock in reliance on the misrepresentation. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Huntington National Bank's (HNB") Motion for a New Trial pursuant to Rule 59 (Doc. No. 172) is DENIED.

I t is so ordered. s / Arthur J. Schwab J u d g e Arthur J. Schwab U . S . District Judge