Bennett v. R&L Carriers Shared Servs., LLC
| Decision Date | 21 June 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 10-2242,10-2242 |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
| Parties | CLYDE L. BENNETT, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. R&L CARRIERS SHARED SERVICES, LLC; DAVID JOHN MCGINNIS, SR., Defendants - Appellants, and R L CARRIERS, INCORPORATED, a/k/a R&L Carriers, Incorporated, a/k/a R L Carriers, a/k/a R&L Carriers; FRANKLIN FINLEY; JAY BULLARD; DAVID LOWRY; GREENWOOD MOTOR LINES, INCORPORATED, Defendants. |
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:08-cv-00498-REP)
Before AGEE, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
ARGUED: Daniel A. Pollack, MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP, New York, New York, for Appellants. John Barry Donohue, Jr., THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN BARRY DONOHUE, JR., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Frank E. Ferruggia, Edward T. McDermott, Steven A. Beckelman, Laura Leacy Kyler, MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP, New York, New York, for Appellants. James B. Thorsen, MARCHANT, THORSEN, HONEY, BALDWIN & MEYER, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.DAVIS, Circuit Judge:
After a three-day trial in the Eastern District of Virginia, a jury found Appellants R&L Carriers Shared Services, LLC (R&L), and David J. McGinnis, Sr., liable to, and returned a substantial damages verdict in favor of, Appellee Clyde Bennett on Bennett's claim for malicious prosecution. Bennett, a former employee of R&L, had been arrested and indicted on a charge of embezzlement based on Appellants' allegations that he had stolen three computers from the workplace, a trucking terminal.
Bennett's claim arose under Virginia law, pursuant to which, "[i]n an action for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff has the burden of proving four essential elements: that the prosecution was (1) malicious, (2) instituted by or with the cooperation of the defendant, (3) without probable cause, and (4) terminated in a manner not unfavorable to the plaintiff." Reilly v. Shepard, 643 S.E.2d 216, 218 (Va. 2007). Appellants contend before us that the evidence at trial was insufficient as a matter of law to support the jury's verdict as to elements (1), (3), and (4). They contend, in the alternative, that the amount of the verdict ($1,716,920 in compensatory damages and a total, as remitted, of $350,000 in punitive damages) is so excessive as to require, at a minimum, a new trial on damages.
The district court rejected Appellants' contentions as to the sufficiency of the evidence at the close of plaintiff's caseand again, in a meticulously-reasoned and comprehensive opinion, see Bennett v. R & L Carriers Shared Servs., LLC, 744 F. Supp. 2d 494 (E.D. Va. 2010), when they were renewed in a post-verdict motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b). The district court remitted the original punitive damages claim (as required by Virginia law), but otherwise it also rejected Appellants' motion for a new trial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. We have carefully considered Appellants' contentions and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
We first consider Appellants' contention that the district court erred in submitting this case to the jury, in light of what they argue was insufficient evidence to support elements of Bennett's claim. We then examine Appellants' contention that the jury's damages award (as remitted) exceeds the bounds of propriety.
Our approach to appellate challenges to a jury verdict and a district court's concomitant denial of a motion for judgment is well-settled:
We review de novo a district court's denial of a Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law. Bryant v. Aiken Reg'l Med. Ctrs. Inc., 333 F.3d 536, 543 (4th Cir. 2003). Pursuant to Rule 50, the issue for assessment on appeal is whether there was a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable tothe prevailing party, to find for that party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a); Bryant, 333 F.3d at 543. If reasonable minds could differ about the verdict, we are obliged to affirm. [Id.] As with other legal rulings, we review de novo the conclusions of law on which a trial court's denial of judgment as a matter of law is premised. See Benner v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 93 F.3d 1228, 1233 (4th Cir. 1996). And we are obliged to accord substantial deference to a district court's interpretation of its own judgment. See Home Port Rentals, Inc. v. Ruben, 957 F.2d 126, 131 (4th Cir. 1992).
ABT Bldg. Prods. Corp. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 472 F.3d 99, 113 (4th Cir. 2006). Guided by these principles, and according "substantial deference," id., as we must, to the district court's searching interpretation of the record supporting the judgment, we are constrained to reject Appellants' contentions. In rejecting Appellants' contentions, we fully embrace, and quote extensively, the comprehensive opinion of the district court.
Based on all the evidence admitted at trial, and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Bennett as the prevailing party, the jury was entitled to make the following findings.
R&L Carriers is a national shipping company that, among other services, manages and completes shipments of various goods at trucking terminals throughout the country. As of March 2006, Bennett, who was fifty-years-old, had been employed for more than two years by R&L as a night shift supervisor at theColonial Heights, Virginia, terminal, located outside of Richmond (the Richmond terminal). Bennett was responsible for overseeing the proper loading and unloading of shipments into and out of tractor trailers and other vehicles by dockworkers.
On Friday, March 3, 2006, R&L discovered that thirteen laptop computers had gone missing while passing through the Richmond terminal en route to their final delivery in Miami, Florida. Two dockworkers, Conan Spangler and Joseph Mitchell, had handled the transfer of the laptop shipment from one tractor trailer to another; inexplicably, they completed conflicting records as to whether the laptops were on the inbound and outbound trucks. Specifically, Spangler recorded the laptops as not received on the inbound tractor trailer from Newark, New Jersey, while Mitchell, essentially working alongside Spangler, recorded the laptops as safely loaded on the sealed outbound tractor trailer. When the tractor trailer was unsealed in Jacksonville, Florida, the laptops were not onboard.
A couple of weeks later, on March 17, 2006, another theft occurred from the dock at the Richmond terminal. Six (of a total of 96) Hewlett Packard computer towers that had been delivered locally were returned to the terminal because their packaging had been damaged and, although they were functionally sound, the computers were rejected by the consignee. The towers were placed in the "Over, Short, and Damaged" (OS&D) area of the dock. Thiswas "an open area delineated by stanchions and rope." J.A. 668. By Sunday, March 19, 2006, two days after being placed there, three of the six towers were missing from OS&D. (As explained infra, Appellants' procured Bennett's arrest and indictment based on their contention that Bennett stole the three computer towers.)
Faced with two apparent thefts within two weeks, the manager of the Richmond terminal, Franklin Finley, contacted R&L's director of operations for the southeast United States, Jay Bullard, and informed him that the company was "missing some computers." J.A. 668. Bullard directed Finley to confirm that the computers could not be accounted for anywhere on the delivery line, and once Finley did so Bullard contacted R&L's regional security investigator, Appellant McGinnis. McGinnis had retired in or about 2002 as a police officer after a 21 year career with the Atlanta, Georgia, police department. Following his retirement, he had joined R&L as a truck driver. After working as a driver for two years, in light of his extensive law enforcement background and his investigative experience, he was named regional security investigator when the R&L security division expanded.
McGinnis arrived at the terminal from Atlanta on Monday, March 27, 2006, aware only of the first theft, i.e., the theft of the thirteen laptops. His review of the shipping documentsrelated to the laptops confirmed that they had been on the truck inbound to Richmond and were missing after the shipment was supposed to be transferred from one truck to another by Spangler and Mitchell. Understandably, McGinnis's suspicions immediately focused on "those two individuals right there [i.e., Spangler and Mitchell]." J.A. 318. McGinnis asked Bullard and Finley "who they considered to be prime suspects," J.A. 778, and the men identified dockworkers Spangler, Mitchell, and David Lowrey "because of their computer knowledge and activities and the fact that two of the individuals had direct contact with . . . the missing shipments."1 J.A. 778. It is unclear exactly whenMcGinnis became aware of the missing computer towers, i.e., the second incident of workplace theft, but after his arrival in Richmond he was soon so.2 As with the laptops, McGinnis confirmed that the towers had in fact arrived at the terminal before their disappearance.
McGinnis then began to interview employees. First, he interviewed Lowrey, for "no more than ten minutes," about the missing computers. J.A. 323. Lowrey said he did not know where the computers were or who might have taken them. McGinnis encouraged him to come forward with any information and informed him that R&L's "silent witness" program provided rewards for tips that lead to arrests and convictions for employee theft.3
McGinnis also interviewed Bennett, who similarly denied any knowledge of where the missing computers were or who might have taken them. McGinnis did...
To continue reading
Request your trial