Fineman v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc.

• Decision Date: 25 June 1991
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 84-3837.
• Citation: 774 F. Supp. 266
• Parties: Elliot FINEMAN and The Industry Network Systems, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

774 F. Supp. 266

Elliot FINEMAN and The Industry Network Systems, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 84-3837.

United States District Court, D. New Jersey.

June 25, 1991.

Steven M. Kramer, New York City, for plaintiffs.

Crummy, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione by John J. Gibbons, Newark, N.J. (Laurence H. Tribe, of counsel), Cambridge, Mass., Stryker, Tams & Dill by Edith K. Payne, Newark, N.J., Covington & Burling, by J. Randolph Wilson, Washington, D.C., for defendant.

OPINION

BISSELL, District Judge.

I. FACTS AND BACKGROUND

The present matter arises pursuant to several remaining motions in this action. First, defendant Armstrong has moved under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59 for a new trial, as an alternative to its motion for J.N.O.V. Second, Armstrong has separately moved under Rule 49 (pertaining to inconsistent verdicts) for a new trial. Finally, the plaintiffs have moved for "reformation of the judgment," requesting this Court to allow them to recover both the tort and antitrust awards.

The latter motion, even if it was not rendered moot by this Court's Opinion granting defendant's motion for J.N.O.V., would be (and is) denied for the reasons enunciated in its Opinion Regarding Entry of Judgment filed on May 6, 1991. Nothing presented in the papers supporting this motion has persuaded the Court that its prior determination is incorrect.

Armstrong's motion under Rule 49¹ may be disposed of as quickly as plaintiffs' motion concerning the judgment. This motion relates to jury answers to interrogatories concerning "overlap" amounts between compensatory awards for the tort claims and the antitrust claims.² This motion is denied without further discussion. This Court has vacated the judgment based upon the verdict in its earlier Opinion granting defendant's motion for J.N.O.V. Furthermore, even if the verdict remained, this Court grants defendant's motion for a new trial on the grounds enunciated below, and thus denies the motion under Rule 49 because such motion is unnecessary.

This Court issued its Opinion as to the motion for J.N.O.V. on June 20, 1991, granting defendant's motion in full. The present Opinion is to be considered in conjunction therewith, and so will not repeat the pertinent facts and background contained therein as such discussion is hereby incorporated by reference.

The present opinion is required in light of the fact that this Court granted the defendant's motion for J.N.O.V. in its entirety:

If the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, provided for in subdivision (b) of this rule, is granted, the court shall also rule on the motion for a new trial, if any, by determining whether it should be granted if the judgment is thereafter vacated or reversed, and shall specify grounds for granting or denying the motion for the new trial. If the motion for a new trial is thus conditionally granted, the order thereon does not affect the finality of the judgment....

(Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(c)(1)).

The defendant asserts three grounds for its motion under Rule 59. First, it contends that the verdict is contrary to the clear weight of the evidence. Second, Armstrong asserts that it is entitled to a new trial because of improper, prejudicial arguments made to the jury by the plaintiffs' counsel. Third, Armstrong asserts that both the compensatory and punitive awards in this case are so grossly excessive as to shock the conscience, thus requiring a new trial.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standards Governing Motions for a New Trial

In general, a trial court should grant a motion for a new trial when, in its opinion, "the verdict is contrary to the great weight of the evidence, thus making a new trial necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice." Roebuck v. Drexel University, 852 F.2d 715, 736 (3d Cir.1988). "The authority to grant a new trial ... is confided almost entirety to the exercise of discretion on the part of the trial court." (Id. at 735 (quoting American Bearing Co. v. Litton Industries, 729 F.2d 943, 948 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 854, 105 S.Ct. 178, 83 L.Ed.2d 112 (1984)). Such discretion reflects the fact that "the district court was able to observe the witnesses and follow the trial in a way that the Appellate Court cannot replicate by reviewing a cold record." (Id., citing Semper v. Santos, 845 F.2d 1233, 1237 (3d Cir.1988)).

The discretion of the court is not unlimited, however. Necessarily, when a motion for a new trial based on the weight of the evidence is granted, the court has:

to some extent at least substituted his judgment of the facts and the credibility of the witnesses for that of the jury. Such an action effects a denigration of the jury system and to the extent that new trials are granted the judge takes over, if he does not usurp, the prime function of the jury as the trier of facts.

Williamson v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 926 F.2d 1344, 1352 (3d Cir.1991) (quoting Lind v. Schenley Indus., Inc., 278 F.2d 79, 90 (3d Cir.) (in banc), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 835, 81 S.Ct. 58, 5 L.Ed.2d 60 (1960)). As with a motion for J.N.O.V., "a district court may not substitute its own judgment for that of the jury simply because the court might have come to a different conclusion." Grace v. Mauser-Werke Gmbh, 700 F.Supp. 1383, 1387 (E.D.Pa.1988) (citing Douglas W. Randall, Inc. v. A.F.A. Protective Systems, Inc., 516 F.Supp. 1122, 1124 (E.D.Pa.1981), aff'd mem., 688 F.2d 820 (3d Cir.1982)). However, a careful analysis of permissible inferences the jury could reasonably draw from the evidence presented at trial does not invade the exclusive domain of the jury. Nebel v. Avichal Enterprises, Inc., 704 F.Supp. 570, 574 (D.N.J.1989) (citing Roebuck, 852 F.2d at 736). Where the verdict is based on inferences which are "mere speculation", a new trial becomes necessary. (Id.) Thus, "the district court ought to grant a new trial on the basis that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence only where a miscarriage of justice would result if the verdict were to stand." Williamson, 926 F.2d at 1352 (citing EEOC v. Delaware Dep't of Health & Social Servs., 865 F.2d 1408, 1413 (3d Cir.1989)).

B. The Weight of the Evidence

As this Court's J.N.O.V. opinion demonstrates, the record in this matter is critically devoid of that quantity and quality of evidence from which a jury might reasonably afford relief for the plaintiffs. Of necessity, the verdict is therefore also contrary to the great weight of the evidence for the same reasons as detailed in the J.N.O.V. Opinion. The verdict in this matter is the product of impermissible speculation, sympathy, and emotion. The jury decided this case with its viscera, not its reasoning, and therefore permitting the verdict to stand would constitute the gravest miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, the defendant's motion for a new trial on the basis that the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence is granted.

C. Attorney Misconduct

Although the first ground for the new trial is sufficient on its own, this Court also chooses to consider the defendant's arguments concerning the conduct of plaintiffs' counsel. This conduct, particularly the repeated appeals to sympathy, speculation and passion rather than reason, is undoubtedly what produced the jury's verdict. Furthermore, conduct such as that engaged in by plaintiffs' counsel requires judicial attention, even if only to award a new trial. The Court determines, whether considered separately or in conjunction with the lack of evidence to support the verdict, Mr. Kramer's conduct demands the granting of a new trial.

In considering a motion for a new trial based on attorney misconduct, "the trial judge has considerable discretion in determining whether conduct by counsel is so prejudicial as to require a new trial." Draper v. Airco, Inc., 580 F.2d 91, 97 (3d Cir.1978) (citing Lewis v. Penn Central, 459 F.2d 468 (3d Cir.1972); Corbett v. Borandi, 375 F.2d 265 (3d Cir.1967)). The Third Circuit has noted:

We wish to emphasize that we do not expect advocacy to be devoid of passion.... But jurors must ultimately base their judgment on the evidence presented and the rational inferences therefrom. Thus, there must be limits to pleas of pure passion and there must be restraints against blatant appeals to bias and prejudice. These bounds of conduct are defined by the Code of Professional Responsibility and the case law.

(Draper, 580 F.2d at 95); see e.g. Salas by Salas v. Wang, 846 F.2d 897, 907-908 (3d Cir.1988) (Draper standard reiterated and distinguished because there was only one "impassioned" statement). Of particular concern to this Court is Rule 3.4(e):

A lawyer shall not ... (e) in trial, allude to any matter that the lawyer does not reasonably believe is relevant or that will not be supported by admissible evidence, assert personal knowledge of facts in issue except when testifying as a witness, or state a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, the credibility of a witness, or the culpability of a civil litigant ...

(RPC 3.4(e)) (emphasis added). Violations of this rule and others, when the court determines that there is a "reasonable probability" that the jury's verdict has been influenced by the improper conduct of counsel, require the court to grant the motion for a new trial. See e.g. Commercial Credit Business Loans, Inc. v. Martin, 590 F.Supp. 328, 332-335 (E.D.Pa.1984) (Trial court granted plaintiff's motion for new trial where counsel offered his opinion, expressed indignation and outrage at the accused conduct, commented upon the conduct of witnesses and vouched for their credibility, all to the extent that there was a reasonable probability that the verdict was influenced by such conduct.); Polansky v. CNA Insurance Co., 852 F.2d 626, 628 (1st Cir.1988) ("Courts have long recognized that statements of counsel's opinions or personal beliefs have no place in a closing argument of a criminal or civil trial.") (Citations omitted...