Cook v. Rockwell Intern. Corp.

• Decision Date: 20 May 2008
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 90-cv-00181-JLK.
• Parties: Merilyn COOK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION and the Dow Chemical Company, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Colorado

564 F.Supp.2d 1189

Merilyn COOK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION and the Dow Chemical Company, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 90-cv-00181-JLK.

United States District Court, D. Colorado.

May 20, 2008.

Judgment Issued June 2, 2008.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Bernadette M. Rappold, David F. Sorensen, Ellen T. Noteware, Eric L. Cramer, Jonathan Auerbach, Peter B. Nordberg, Stanley B. Siegel, Merrill Gene Davidoff, Berger & Montague, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, Christopher Thomas Reyna, John David Stoner, Chimicles & Tikellis, L.L.P., Haverford, PA, David Evans Kreutzer, Colorado Attorney General's Office, Gary B. Blum, Holly Brons Shook, Silver & Deboskey, P.C., Denver, CO, Jean Marie Geoppinger, Louise M. Roselle, Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., L.P.A., Cincinnati, OH, Kenneth A. Jacobsen, Jacobsen Law Offices, LLC, Wallingford, PA, R. Bruce McNew, Greenville, DE, for Plaintiffs.

Amy Horton, Edward J. Naughton, Timothy P. Brooks, Wendy S. White, Goodwin Procter, LLP, Washington, DC, John E. Tangren, Stephanie A. Brennan, David M. Bernick, Douglas J. Kurtenbach, Mark S. Lillie, S. Jonathan Silverman, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, Martin Thomas Tully, Katten Muchin Rosenman, LLP, Chicago, IL, Joseph John Bronesky, Christopher Lane, Sherman & Howard, L.L.C., Lester C. Houtz, Bartlit, Beck, Herman, Palenchar & Scott, LLP, Denver, CO, Douglas M. Poland, Lafollette, Godfrey & Kahn, Madison, WI, Louis W. Pribila, Midland, MI, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS

KANE, District Judge.

On February 14, 2006, the jury returned a verdict in the class trial on Plaintiffs' trespass and property claims finding for Plaintiffs and against Defendants on both claims and awarding Plaintiffs compensatory and exemplary damages. This matter is now before me on Defendants' renewed motion for judgment as a matter of a law pursuant to Rule 50(b) and their motion for new trial or, in the alternative, for remittitur of damages pursuant to Rule 59. For the reasons stated below, I deny both motions.

Both parties have also submitted motions directed at putting the claims and issues decided in the course of the class trial in a posture for immediate appeal. Upon consideration of their competing proposals, I have determined that final judgment on the claims decided in the class trial shall be entered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The substance of the final judgment and related plan of allocation to be entered is set out in Section III below.

Discussion

I. Defendants' Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law

Defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a) at the close of Plaintiffs' case and again at the close of evidence. I review Defendants' latest Rule 50 motion under the same standard as their previous motions.

Under Rule 50, judgment as a matter of law in favor of Defendants is warranted "only if the evidence points but one way and is susceptible to no reasonable inferences supporting [Plaintiffs]." Snyder v. City of Moab, 354 F.3d 1179, 1184 (10th Cir.2003); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a). In making this determination, I must view the evidence and any inferences to be drawn from it most favorably to the Plaintiffs, as the non-moving party. Baty v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 172 F.3d 1232, 1241 (10 th Cir.1999), overruled on other grounds, Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 122 S.Ct. 2061, 153 L.Ed.2d 106 (2002). I also must "refrain from weighing the evidence, passing on the credibility of witnesses or substituting [my] judgment for that of the jury." Brown v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 11 F.3d 1559, 1563 (10 th Cir.1993); see Baty, 172 F.3d at 1241.

I denied Defendants' first and second Rule 50 motions based on my determination that, viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, there was a sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to find for Plaintiffs on each of the issues identified by Defendants in their motions. In their most recent Rule 50 motion, Defendants seek judgment on the same issues as in their previous motions relying on much the same arguments as before. Having carefully considered these renewed arguments and Plaintiffs' response under the standard for decision stated above, I again find that there was a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for Plaintiffs on each of the issues challenged by Defendants. Accordingly, I deny Defendants' Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law.

II. Defendants' Motion for New Trial and Alternative Motion for Remittitur of Damages

Defendants have also moved pursuant to Rule 59(a) for the jury's verdicts to be set aside and a new trial ordered based on alleged inconsistencies and excesses in the jury's verdicts and other alleged errors committed before, during and after trial. In the alternative, Defendants seek remitittur of the jury's compensatory and exemplary damages verdicts.

Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a court may grant a new trial after a jury trial "for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an action at law in federal court." Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(a)(1)(A). Granting a new trial is only appropriate, however, where the claimed error substantially and adversely affects the rights of a party. See Sanjuan v. IBP, Inc., 160 F.3d 1291, 1297 (10 th Cir.1998); Fed.R.Civ.P. 61. The burden of showing an error having this prejudicial effect rests on the party seeking the new trial. See Streber v. Hunter, 221 F.3d 701, 736 (5th Cir.2000); Clarksville-Montgomery County Sch. Sys. v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 925 F.2d 993, 1002 (6th Cir.1991); see generally 11 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure Civil § 2803, at 47 (2d ed. 1995 & Supp. 2007) (collecting cases). The decision of whether to grant a new trial rests within the sound discretion of the district court. See Shugart v. Cent. Rural Elec. Co-op., 110 F.3d 1501, 1506 (10 th Cir.1997); York v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 95 F.3d 948, 958 (10 th Cir.1996). While federal law governs the procedural aspects of a motion for new trial or remittitur, state law sets the substantive standards in this action, see 42 U.S.C. § 2014(hh); Gasperini v. Ctr. for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415, 426-39, 116 S.Ct. 2211, 135 L.Ed.2d 659 (1996), except to the extent that a federal constitutional challenge is raised.

Defendants devote nearly three-fourths of their voluminous Rule 59 motion to rearguing my decisions to proceed with a class trial, to admit certain lay and expert evidence, to reject certain of Defendants' proposed jury instructions and overrule their objections to other instructions, and to deny Defendants' multiple motions for mistrial. Each of the challenged decisions was reached after reasoned consideration of extensive written and/or oral argument from both parties. After careful review of Defendants' most recent arguments regarding these matters, I find no basis for reconsidering these decisions. Accordingly, I deny Defendants' motion for new trial based on the claimed errors in my previous decisions.¹

The remainder of Defendants' arguments for new trial are based on alleged inconsistencies or excesses in the jury's compensatory and exemplary damages verdicts. I examine each of these arguments in turn, as well as Defendants' alternative motion for remittitur of damages.

A. Request for New Trial Based on Alleged Inconsistencies in the Jury's Damages Verdicts

Defendants assert a new trial is required because the jury's answers to the damages interrogatories in the jury verdict form are inconsistent in various respects. In order for a new trial to be ordered on this basis, Defendants must "show that any verdict inconsistency demonstrates either confusion or abuse on the jury's part." Domann v. Vigil, 261 F.3d 980, 983 (10th Cir.2001) (internal quotation omitted). Special interrogatory answers that are "irreconcilably inconsistent" because they are "logically incompatible" indicate such jury confusion or abuse of power. See Loughridge v. Chiles Power Supply Co., 431 F.3d 1268, 1275 (10th Cir.2005). In determining whether there is any inconsistency meeting this standard, I "must accept any reasonable view of the case that makes the jury's answers consistent," and consider the verdict in light of the instructions given to the jury, among other factors. Id. (internal quotations omitted).

The jury answers challenged by Defendants are not "logically incompatible" or even inconsistent. Far from indicating that the jury was confused or abused its power in determining damages, these answers indicate a diligent effort by the jury to follow the instructions they received regarding determination of damages. Defendants' complaints, as a result, are more properly directed to the jury instructions and verdict form than to any inconsistency in the jury's verdicts.²

There is no inconsistency, for example, in the jury's determination of identical compensatory damages for the trespass and nuisance claims. The jury was instructed to determine any compensatory damages resulting from a trespass or nuisance committed by the Defendants separately, and informed that the court would apply the rule prohibiting multiple recovery of the same damages when it issued judgment on the jury's verdict. Notice of Final Jury Instructions (Doc. 2121) [hereinafter "Final Jury Instructions"], No. 3.26 ("Multiple Recovery Prohibited").³ Following this and other instructions and the corresponding interrogatories in the verdict form, the jury found both Defendants liable on both theories of liability and determined that the aggregate damages to the Class⁴ on each claim were $176,850,340. Jury Verdict Form (Doc. 2117) at 15, 24. All concede, and I found following the jury's verdict, see 2/14/06 Tr. ...