Docmagic, Inc. v. Mortg. P'ship of America, LLC
| Decision Date | 30 January 2012 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4:09CV1779MLM |
| Parties | DOCMAGIC, INC., Plaintiff, v. THE MORTGAGE PARTNERSHIP OF AMERICA, LLC d/b/a LENDERS ONE, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
This matter is before the court on post-trial Motions filed by plaintiff, DocMagic, Inc. ("plaintiff" or "DocMagic") and by defendant, The Mortgage Partnership of America, LLC d/b/a Lenders One ("defendant" or "Lenders One"). This case was tried to a jury from November 7, 2011 through November 14, 2011. The jury found as follows:
On the claim of plaintiff DocMagic against defendant Lenders One, for breach of the Agreement to refer, market and promote the products of plaintiff DocMagic, the jury found in favor of defendant Lenders One.
On the claim of plaintiff DocMagic against defendant Lenders One, for refusing to allow plaintiff DocMagic to attend the August conference in the District of Columbia, the jury found in favor of plaintiff DocMagic in the amount of zero dollars ($0.00).
On the claim of plaintiff DocMagic against defendant Lenders One, for evading the spirit of the Agreement, the jury found in favor of defendant Lenders One.
On the claim of plaintiff DocMagic against defendant Lenders One, for denying plaintiff DocMagic the expected benefit of the Agreement, the jury found in favor of defendant Lenders One.
On the claim of plaintiff DocMagic against defendant Lenders One, for misrepresentation that it would refer, market and promote plaintiff DocMagic's projects and services, the jury found in favor of defendant Lenders One.
On the claim of plaintiff DocMagic against defendant Lenders One, for misrepresentation that there was an immediate opportunity for plaintiff DocMagic to capture Calyx users, the jury found in favor of plaintiff DocMagic in the amount of Two Hundred Forty Three Thousand Dollars ($243,000.00).
On the claim of plaintiff DocMagic against defendant Lenders One, for misrepresentation that it would get a majority of the 20,000 loans closed per month, the jury found in favor of defendant Lenders One.
On the claim of defendant Lenders One against plaintiff DocMagic, for breach of the Agreement by failing to give Lenders One accurate monthly sales reports, the jury found in favor of defendant Lenders One.
On the claim of defendant Lenders One against plaintiff DocMagic, for breach of the Agreement for failing to pay defendant Lenders One a monthly 10% marketing fee on its revenue from all sales to all defendant Lenders One's members, the juryfound in favor of defendant Lenders One in the amount of Fifty Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($52,500.00).
Plaintiff moves for new trial on seven grounds: that the jury's verdicts on DocMagic's claims for (1) breach of contract and (2) breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, were against the weight of the evidence and the jury's verdicts on these two claims were inconsistent, (3) and (4). Plaintiff also moves for additur on the grounds that the jury's verdicts on DocMagic's claims for breach of contract (5) and fraud in the inducement (6) were inadequate. Plaintiff also moves for a new trial on the ground that (7) the conduct of Scott Stern was prejudicial and warrants a new trial. Defendant has responded to each of these grounds.
Rule 59(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that:
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a)(1)(A) "confirms the trial court's historic power to grant a new trial based on its appraisal on the fairness of the trial and the reliability of the jury's verdict." Gray v. Bicknell, 86 F.3d 1472, 1480 (8th Cir. 1996). "The authority to grant a new trial. . .is confided almost entirely to the exercise ofdiscretion on the part of the trial court." Sanford v. Crittenden Memorial Hospital, 141 F.3d 882, 884 (8th Cir. 1998).
A motion for new trial should only be granted "if the jury verdict were [sic] against the great weight of the evidence so as to constitute a miscarriage of justice." Denesha v. Farmer's Ins. Exchange, 161 F.3d 491, 497 (8th Cir. 1998), quoting Pulla v. Amoco Oil Co., 72 F.3d 648, 656 (8th Cir. 1959); Harris v. Sec'y. of the Army, 119 F.3d 1313, 1318 (8th Cir. 1997); Gray, 86 F.3d at 1480 (). The Eighth Circuit has consistently taken the position that a new trial is only appropriate when the "outcome is against the great weight of the evidence so as to constitute a miscarriage of justice." Christensen v. Titan Distrib., Inc., 481 F.3d 1085, 1098 (8th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation omitted). Even as recently as 2010, the Eighth Circuit held that a new trial is warranted only "where the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence, clearly excessive or the result of passion or prejudice." Jones v. National American University, 608 F.3d 1039, 1048 (8th Cir. 2010)(internal quotation omitted).
In White v. Pence, 961 F.2d 776, 779-781 (8th Cir. 1992) the Eighth Circuit discussed at length the difference between motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial. The court said:
With respect to motions for a new trial on the question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, we have stated: "In determining whether a verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the trial court can rely on its own reading of the evidence - - it can 'weighthe evidence, disbelieve witnesses, and grant a new trial even where there is substantial evidence to sustain the verdict.'" Ryan v. McDonough Power Equip., 734 F.2d 385, 387 (8th Cir. 1984) (citation omitted).
However, the court made it clear that the jury's verdict must at least be against the great weight of the evidence and endorsed the proposition that otherwise it "would destroy the role of the jury as the principal trier of the facts and would enable the trial judge to disregard the jury's verdict at will." Id. The court concluded that regardless of the rhetoric, the true standard for granting a new trial is simply one "which measures the result in terms of whether a miscarriage of justice has occurred." Id. The court emphasized that the trial court's discretion is not boundless and it is not "free to re-weigh the evidence and set aside the jury verdict merely because the jury could have drawn different inferences or conclusions or because judges feel that other results are more reasonable." Id., quoting Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. v. Aalco Wrecking Co., 466 F.2d 179, 186 (8th Cir. 1972). In other words, the "trial judge may not usurp the functions of the jury . . .[which] weighs the evidence and credibility of witnesses." Id. at 781, quoting McGee v. South Pemiscot School Dist., 712 F.2d 339, 344 (8th Cir. 1983).
Plaintiff's first two grounds for moving for a new trial are that the jury's verdicts on plaintiff's breach of contract claim and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing claim were against the weight of the evidence.
Instruction No. 9 on plaintiff's claim for breach of contract submitted two alternative grounds on which the jury could find that Lenders One breached the Agreement between the parties. As to the first alternative, the jury found in favor of Lenders One on plaintiff's claim that Lenders One did not refer, market or promote the products of DocMagic.
The court has reviewed the five days of evidence, testimony, exhibits and e-mails. The extensive testimony of Barry Sandweiss, Amy Scarborough and Luke Pille outlined in detail the means and methods used by Lenders One to refer, market and promote their various vendors to their Members. There was an abundance of evidence on this subject. The fact that Lenders One's methods did not comport with what DocMagic thought should be done is clearly not grounds for an allegation that Lenders One did nothing to refer, market or promote DocMagic's product. The jury weighed the evidence and credibility of the witnesses and found for Lenders One. This was not against the great weight of the evidence nor a miscarriage of justice and clearly cannot be grounds for a new trial. See White, 961 F.2d at 779-781.
As to the second alternative on the breach of contract count, the jury found in favor of DocMagic on DocMagic's claim that Lenders One refused to allow DocMagic to attend the August conference in the District of Columbia. The evidence and testimony were clear that DocMagic was not permitted to attend. The jury found, however, that DocMagic should be awarded zero damages. This point will be taken up in the section of this Memorandum Opinion concerning damages and additur.
Instruction No. 10 on Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing also submitted two alternative grounds on which the jury could find that Lenders One breached this duty. The jury found for Lenders One on both the claim that Lenders One evaded the spirit of the Agreement and that Lenders One denied DocMagic the expected benefit of the Agreement.
There is no dispute that "Missouri law implies a covenant of good faith and fair dealing in every contract." Missouri Consolidated Health Care Plan v. Community Health Plan, 81 S.W.3d 34, 45 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002) quoting Farmers' Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Missouri Department of Corrections, 977 S.W.2d 266, 271 (Mo. banc 19...
To continue reading
Request your trial