Jordan v. Maxfield & Oberton Holdings, L.L.C.

• Decision Date: 07 October 2020
• Docket Number: No. 19-60364,19-60364
• Parties: Meaghin JORDAN, Individually and, on behalf of their minor son, Braylon Jordan; Jonathan Jordan, Individually and, on behalf of their minor son, Braylon Jordan, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. MAXFIELD & OBERTON HOLDINGS, L.L.C., Defendant—Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

977 F.3d 412

Meaghin JORDAN, Individually and, on behalf of their minor son, Braylon Jordan; Jonathan Jordan, Individually and, on behalf of their minor son, Braylon Jordan, Plaintiffs—Appellants,

v.MAXFIELD & OBERTON HOLDINGS, L.L.C., Defendant—Appellee.

No. 19-60364

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

FILED October 7, 2020

Carl Victor Welsh, III, Esq., Attorney, Pittman, Ann Russell Chandler, Crymes Morgan Pittman, Roberts & Welsh, P.L.L.C., Jackson, MS, for Plaintiff - Appellant.

Lewis William Bell, Steven Daniel Orlansky, Attorney, Watkins & Eager, P.L.L.C., Jackson, MS, for Defendant - Appellee.

Before Stewart, Clement, and Costa, Circuit Judges.

Carl E. Stewart, Circuit Judge:

At twenty-two months old, Braylon Jordan suffered terrible injuries after ingesting eight Buckyball magnets. Meaghin and Jonathan Jordan, Braylon's parents, sued Maxfield & Oberton Holdings, L.L.C. ("M&O") for manufacturing and distributing Buckyball magnets in the United States. After an eight-day trial, the jury returned a verdict for M&O. The Jordans moved for a new trial and for relief from judgment. The district court denied both motions. We AFFIRM.

I. Facts and Procedural History

In 2009, M&O manufactured and distributed Buckyball magnets, small neodymium magnets¹ that can be manipulated into various shapes. Prior to 2010, Buckyball magnets were labeled as appropriate for children ages 13 and up. In 2010, the Consumer Product Safety Commission ("CPSC") recalled Buckyball magnets to clarify the magnets’ labels pursuant to the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008. The Act adopted the American Society for Testing Materials ("ASTM") standard F963, which imposed strength limits on magnets designed, manufactured, or marketed for children under age 14. Magnets for children under age 14 were prohibited from exceeding 50 Gauss.² Prior to the CPSC's recall, Buckyball magnets did not comply with standard F963 because they were marketed to children ages 13 and up and exceeded the 50 Gauss level.

After the recall, M&O worked with the CPSC to change Buckyball magnet labels to indicate that the magnets were not intended for children of any age. The new label appeared on Buckyball magnets in 2011 and warned that they were to be kept away from all children and could cause serious injury or death if swallowed or inhaled.

In March 2011, the Jordans purchased a set of Buckyball magnets (featuring the new label) from Diamondhead Pharmacy and Gift Shop in Diamondhead, Mississippi. On April 2, 2012, Braylon became very sick and vomited throughout the night. His parents took him to an urgent-care facility, and he was later transferred to a hospital. An x-ray revealed that Braylon had swallowed eight Buckyball magnets, causing major damage to his stomach and intestines. Jonathan Jordan testified that they ordinarily stored the Buckyball magnets outside of Braylon's reach, but Braylon may have found some loose magnets underneath the couch.

On March 24, 2015, the Jordans filed suit against M&O. The Jordans asserted several claims against M&O under Mississippi state law, including product liability claims for failure to warn and defective design. They also asserted fraudulent transfer, civil conspiracy, and federal and state Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") claims against M&O and its insurers. The district court bifurcated the claims and held a separate trial on those for product liability.

Despite pleading both failure to warn and defective design claims, the Jordans only argued the defective design claim at trial. Under the Mississippi Product Liability Act ("MPLA"), a claimant must demonstrate that the product was defective "at the time the product left the control of the manufacturer, designer or seller." MISS. CODE ANN. § 11-1-63(a) (2014). Claimants must also show that "[t]he manufacturer or seller knew, or in light of reasonably available knowledge or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, about the danger that caused the damage for which recovery is sought." Id. at § 11-1-63(f)(i). "The [MPLA] speaks only of dangers known as of the time the product leaves the control of the manufacturer or seller." Noah v. Gen. Motors Corp. , 882 So.2d 235, 239 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004).

Before trial, M&O submitted a motion in limine to exclude evidence that post-dated the Jordans’ Buckyball purchase ("post-sale evidence"). M&O argued that post-sale evidence was irrelevant because it did not reflect what M&O knew when the Jordans purchased the Buckyball magnets. M&O sought to exclude all mention of the CPSC's subsequent regulation of rare-earth magnets and its administrative actions against M&O. In July 2012 (more than a year after the Jordans’ Buckyball purchase), the CPSC designated Buckyballs and all other rare-earth magnets as "substantial product hazards." The CPSC sued M&O in an administrative enforcement action and recalled all Buckyball magnets later that year. In 2014, the CPSC adopted a mandatory safety standard for magnets that effectively banned the sale of Buckyballs and other rare-earth magnets. M&O hoped to exclude evidence of these proceedings and related proceedings between the CPSC and Zen Magnets, M&O's chief competitor.

The Jordans opposed M&O's motion in limine and sought to introduce various pieces of post-sale evidence. They sought to introduce July 2012 correspondence between the CPSC and Alan Schoem, M&O's attorney, where the CPSC discussed the risk of swallowing Buckyball magnets and its investigation into M&O. They also sought to introduce the CPSC's July 2012 Administrative Complaint against M&O, the CPSC Hazardous Magnet Rule Briefing Package (a proposal related to the mandatory safety standard the CPSC adopted in 2014), and the CPSC's Amended Responses to Requests for Admissions in its administrative action against M&O.

The district court granted the motion in limine in part and excluded most post-sale evidence. The district court allowed the Jordans to introduce a post-sale study that one of their medical experts relied on, but the court otherwise instructed the parties to "stick to the MPLA and avoid any risk of retrying this case at great expense and inconvenience." Jordan v. Maxfield & Oberton Holdings L.L.C. , No. 3:15-CV-220, 2018 WL 3027367 (S.D. Miss. June 18, 2018) (order granting motion in limine in part and denying in part). Notwithstanding the motion in limine, the Jordans did use some post-sale evidence to crossexamine witnesses.³

Through the beginning of trial, the Jordans argued that Buckyball magnets were children's toys and were defectively designed under the MPLA. On the fifth day of trial, the Jordans asked the district court to give the jury a preemption instruction, arguing that the 2008 Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act incorporated ASTM F963 and partially preempted state law. Counsel for the Jordans argued that ASTM F963 (requiring that magnets not exceed 50 Gauss) could be used to determine the magnet defect and that the jury could render a verdict for the Jordans if it concluded that Buckyball magnets exceeded 50 Gauss. The district court denied the Jordans’ request for the preemption jury instruction.

After an eight-day trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of M&O. The Jordans moved for a new trial under FED. R. CIV. P. 59(a) on all issues. The Jordans also moved for relief from the final judgment under FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(3). The district court denied both motions, and the Jordans appealed. The Jordans’ notice of appeal lists many rulings that they now contest. We review their claims through the lens of the Rule 59 and Rule 60 motions.

II. Discussion

On appeal, the Jordans first argue under Rule 59 that the district court's exclusionary rulings prevented them from presenting their case and cross-examining M&O's witnesses. Next, the Jordans argue under rule 60 that the exclusion of post-sale evidence allowed M&O to misrepresent the facts at trial. Lastly, they argue under Rule 59 that the district court's denial of their request for a preemption instruction warrants a new trial. We agree with the district court's denial of relief on all issues.

a. Rule 59 motion

The Jordans argue for a new trial based on the district court's grant of the motion in limine and bench rulings that excluded post-sale evidence. They argue that the district court's rulings prevented them from fully presenting their case. We disagree.

The district court denied the Jordans’ motion for a new trial under Rule 59, and we review the denial of that motion for abuse of discretion. Benson v. Tyson Foods, Inc. , 889 F.3d 233, 234 (5th Cir. 2018).

After a jury trial, a court may grant a motion for a new 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). A court may grant a new trial when there is an erroneous evidentiary ruling at trial. See Willitt v. Purvis , 276 F.2d 129, 132 (5th Cir. 1960) (affirming the district court's grant of a new trial when evidence was erroneously adduced at trial). "Courts do not grant new trials unless it is reasonably clear that prejudicial error has crept into the record or that substantial justice has not been done, and the burden of showing harmful error rests on the party seeking the new trial." Sibley v. Lemaire , 184 F.3d 481, 487 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting Del Rio Distrib., Inc. v. Adolph Coors Co. , 589 F.2d 176, 179 n.3 (5th Cir. 1979) ).

The Jordans allege that the exclusionary rulings constituted prejudicial error because the rulings prevented the Jordans from fully presenting their case and cross-examining M&O's witnesses. A central issue at trial was whether Buckyball magnets were children's toys or adult products, and the Jordans argue that they were unable to fully present their case on this issue. M&O's witnesses testified that the CPSC determined that Buckyball magnets were adult products. M&O designated Nancy Nord, a former CPSC commissioner, as...