Affordable Care, LLC v. JNM Office Prop.

Decision Date10 August 2022
Docket NumberCIVIL 1:19cv827-HSO-RPM
PartiesAFFORDABLE CARE, LLC PLAINTIFF v. JNM OFFICE PROPERTY, LLC DEFENDANT
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT JNM OFFICE PROPERTY, LLC'S RENEWED MOTION [236][238][240] FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, MOTION FOR REMITTITUR, MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, AND MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT

HALIL SULEYMAN OZERDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

BEFORE THE COURT is Defendant JNM Office Property's Renewed Motion [236][238][240] for Judgment as a Matter of Law Motion for Remittitur, Motion for New Trial, and Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. These Motions are fully briefed. Having considered Defendant's Motions [236][238][240] on their merits, the related pleadings, the record, and relevant legal authority, the Court is of the opinion that the Motions [236][238][240] should be granted in part and denied in part.

I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual background

This dispute arises out of a Lease Agreement between Plaintiff Affordable Care, LLC (“Affordable” or Plaintiff) and Defendant JNM Office Property, LLC (“JNM” or Defendant) that was entered into on July 24, 2013, for the lease of an office building in Gulfport, Mississippi (the “Property”). Compl. [1] at 2; Ex. [1-2] at 1-16. JNM is owned by two dentists, Dr. Raeline McIntyre and Dr. Neil McIntyre. Resp. [5] at 1. The McIntyres operated their dental practice out of the Property and had also entered into a separate Management Services Agreement (“the MSA”) with Affordable, under which Affordable provided professional dental equipment, supplies, staff, and services for the McIntyres to operate their dental practice. Ex. [34-1]. The MSA was an entirely separate agreement from the Lease Agreement and was the subject of a separate arbitration proceeding. Order [215] at 3.

On October 24, 2019, JNM forwarded a Notice of Termination of the Lease, contending that Affordable had defaulted on the Lease Agreement. See Compl. [4] at 4. JNM purportedly invoked its right to terminate the Lease immediately, retake possession of the Property, and accelerate all remaining rent payments in the amount of $1,531,135.57. See id. On February 27, 2020, JNM also obtained a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) from the Chancery Court of Harrison County, Mississippi, to prevent Affordable's employees from entering the Property to take possession of certain equipment, materials, supplies, and inventory located there. Ex. [34-3] at 10-11.

Affordable's claims in this case included that JNM wrongfully restricted its employees' access to the Property despite Affordable having paid rent, in violation of the Lease Agreement, and despite it having its own dentistry equipment and supplies inside the Property. Am. Compl. [160] at 10. Furthermore, Affordable alleges that the McIntyres continued to use Affordable's equipment and occupied the building to the exclusion of other dentists, preventing Affordable from collecting management fees from other dentists it could have placed in the Property, from February 27, 2020, until March 27, 2020. Id. at 11. The operative Amended Complaint [160] alleged that: (1) JNM wrongly declared default under the Lease Agreement; (2) that Affordable was entitled to reimbursement for over-payments of rent and other items; and (3) that JNM wrongfully evicted Affordable, causing damages. Id. at 5-6. Affordable further asserted claims for bad faith breach of contract, conversion, property damage, and unjust enrichment. Id. at 14. In response, JNM counterclaimed for breach of the Lease Agreement and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Ans. [161] at 11-15.

B. Procedural history

After suit was filed, on December 6, 2019, the parties entered into a Joint Stipulation [13] to maintain the status quo, whereby Affordable would remain in possession of the Property and continue to make monthly rent payments to JNM. Stip. [13] at 2-3. Subsequently, however, Defendants evicted Affordable from the property from February 27, 2020 until March 27, 2020, when the Court ordered Defendants to restore Affordable's access. Order [56].

Both parties submitted Motions [181][183] for Partial Summary Judgment, which the Court granted in part and denied in part following a hearing held on March 1, 2021. Order [200]. The Court found that Affordable had not defaulted on the Lease and that the Lease remained in effect. Id. The Court also dismissed JNM's counterclaims against Affordable, finding that Affordable did not materially breach the Lease Agreement and did not breach the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Id. The issues remaining for trial were Affordable's claims for wrongful eviction, bad faith breach of contract, conversion, property damage, and unjust enrichment. Id.

Prior to trial, Affordable filed a Motion [206] in Limine to exclude, among other things, references to the TRO, arguments that JNM actually owned the office equipment, and any reference to other lawsuits, arbitrations, or counterclaims between the parties. Mot. [206]. JNM filed its own Motion [215] in Limine seeking to exclude references to the Joint Stipulation [13]. The Court granted in part and denied in part both Motions. Specifically, it excluded references to the Joint Stipulation, the TRO, and other lawsuits, arbitrations, or counterclaims. The Court ruled that arguments of ownership were relevant to the issue of damages, and therefore would be permissible at trial.

C. Trial and post-trial proceedings

The remaining claims were tried before a jury on February 7-8, 2022. J. [230]. At the conclusion of Affordable's case-in-chief, JNM made an ore tenus Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a). The Court granted the Motion in part and denied it in part, and dismissed Affordable's claims for property damage, unjust enrichment, and conversion. The Motion was denied with respect to the remaining claim for breach of contract based upon the wrongful eviction.

The jury returned a verdict in Affordable's favor and awarded $80,791.00 in compensatory damages, consisting of the amount of rent Affordable had paid for the month it was excluded from the Property by JNM, and an amount of lost management fees for that period. The jury also awarded $120,000.00 in punitive damages, for a total judgment of $200,791.00. The Court entered Judgment on February 9, 2022. J. [230]

Defendant has filed the present Renewed Motion [236] for Judgment as a Matter of Law, Motion for Remittitur, Motion for New Trial, and Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment,[1] arguing that it is entitled to relief because the evidence offered to support the compensatory and punitive damages awards was legally insufficient. Mem. [237] at 12. Alternatively, JNM maintains that it is entitled to a new trial on the issue of punitive damages because the award was contrary to the great weight of the evidence, there were prejudicial evidentiary rulings, or alternatively, the damages must be reduced as a matter of law. Id. at 18-22. Affordable opposes the Motion. Resp. [245].

II. DISCUSSION
A. Applicable legal standards

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) permits a party, within 28 days after the entry of judgment, to file a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b). Judgment as a matter of law is appropriate only when the “facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in the movant's favor that reasonable jurors could not reach a contrary conclusion.” OneBeacon Ins. Co. v. T. Wade Welch & Assocs., 841 F.3d 669, 675 (5th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Baisden v. I'm Ready Prods., Inc., 693 F.3d 491, 498 (5th Cir. 2012)). The Court must draw “all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the verdict and cannot substitute other inferences that [it] might regard as more reasonable.” Id. It is the non-moving party's burden to “at least establish a conflict in substantial evidence on each essential element of their claim.” North Cypress Med. Ctr Operating Co. v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 898 F.3d 461, 473 (5th Cir. 2018) (quoting Goodner v. Hyundai Motor Co., Ltd., 650 F.3d 1034, 1039 (5th Cir. 2011)). “Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, less than a preponderance, and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. (quoting Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. Humble Surgical Hosp., L.L.C., 878 F.3d 478, 485 (5th Cir. 2017)).

A court has the discretion to grant 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); Jordan v. Maxfield & Oberton Holdings, L.L.C., 977 F.3d 412, 417 (5th Cir. 2020). The Fifth Circuit has identified several grounds as sufficient to order a new trial, including “if the district court finds the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the damages awarded are excessive, the trial was unfair, or prejudicial error was committed in its course.” Smith v. Transworld Drilling Co., 773 F.2d 610, 613 (5th Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). A jury award is excessive “only if it is greater than the maximum amount the trier of fact could properly have awarded.” Moore v. M/V ANGELA, 353 F.3d 376, 384 (5th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted).

“When a damage award is merely excessive or so large as to appear contrary to right reason, remittitur is the appropriate remedy.” Consol. Cos. v. Lexington Ins. Co. 616 F.3d 422, 435 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Laxton v. Gap Inc., 333 F.3d 572, 586 (5th Cir. 2003)). If the Court deems the jury award “excessive,” then it “may remit the award rather than order a new trial, so long as the award does not...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT