Jo v. JPMC Specialty Mortg., LLC

• Decision Date: 28 March 2019
• Docket Number: 1:08-CV-00230 EAW
• Citation: 369 F.Supp.3d 511
• Parties: Billian JO, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Mee Jin-Jo, Plaintiff, v. JPMC SPECIALTY MORTGAGE, LLC, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of New York

369 F.Supp.3d 511

Billian JO, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Mee Jin-Jo, Plaintiff,

v.JPMC SPECIALTY MORTGAGE, LLC, Defendant.

1:08-CV-00230 EAW

United States District Court, W.D. New York.

Signed March 28, 2019

Billian Jo, Ferndale, MI, pro se.

Kenneth J. Flickinger, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, White Plains, NY, for Defendant.

DECISION AND ORDER

ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, United States District Judge

INTRODUCTION

Mee Jin-Jo, now deceased and represented in this action by her daughter and personal representative Billian Jo ("Plaintiff"),¹ commenced this pro se lawsuit on March 18, 2008, alleging that JPMC Specialty Mortgage, LLC ("Defendant") improperly retained control over her property after she was evicted as a no-fault tenant from her residence. (Dkt. 1). The Court held a jury trial commencing on June 18, 2018. (Dkt. 365). The jury returned a "no cause of action" verdict on June 21, 2018 (Dkt. 372), and judgment was entered in Defendant's favor the same day (Dkt. 373).

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Dkt. 375). Plaintiff takes issue with a number of evidentiary rulings and other determinations made by the Court throughout trial. (Dkt. 375-2). Defendant opposes Plaintiff's motion (Dkt. 379), and Plaintiff has filed reply papers (Dkt. 380). For the following reasons, Plaintiff's motion is denied.

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standard

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(1)(A) provides that a court "may, on motion, grant a new trial on all or some of the issues—and to any party—as follows: ... after a jury trial, for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an action at law in federal court." "Essentially, to grant a Rule 59 motion, a district court ‘must conclude that the jury has reached a seriously erroneous result or the verdict is a miscarriage of justice, i.e. , it must view the jury's verdict as against the weight of the evidence.’ " Greenaway v. County of Nassau , 327 F.Supp.3d 552, 560 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) (quoting Maureen Christensen v. County of Dutchess, N.Y. , 548 F. App'x 651, 653 (2d Cir. 2013) ); see Manley v. AmBase Corp. , 337 F.3d 237, 245 (2d Cir. 2003) (same).

"[E]rroneous evidentiary rulings may furnish a basis for granting a post-verdict motion for a new trial under Rule 59." Dreyer v. Ryder Auto. Carrier Grp., Inc. , No. 98-CV-82A, 2008 WL 754113, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2008) (quoting LNC Invs., Inc. v. First Fidelity Bank , 126 F.Supp.2d 778, 787 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) ). However, "[a] trial court has considerable discretion in determining whether to admit or exclude evidence." Mem'l Drive Consultants, Inc. v. ONY, Inc. , No. 96-CV-0702E(F), 2001 WL 241781, at *6 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2001) (citing Barrett v. Orange Cty. Human Rights Comm'n , 194 F.3d 341, 346 (2d Cir. 1999) ), aff'd , 29 F. App'x 56 (2d Cir. 2002) ; see Pace v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. , 291 F.Supp.2d 93, 97 (D. Conn. 2003) ("Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for an abuse of discretion."). Accordingly, "[a] motion for new trial on the basis of improper evidentiary rulings will be granted only where the improper ruling affects a substantial right of the moving party." Mem'l Drive Consultants, Inc. v. ONY, Inc. , 29 F. App'x 56, 61 (2d Cir. 2002) (citing Malek v. Fed. Ins. Co. , 994 F.2d 49, 55 (2d Cir. 1993) ). "Whether a ‘substantial right’ has been invaded is dependent on the circumstances of the case, and the proceedings will not be disturbed, on post-trial motion in the district court or on appeal, unless any error of the court was truly harmful." LNC Invs., Inc. , 126 F.Supp.2d at 787 (quoting Wright & Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 2885 pp. 453-54 (1995) ).

II. Plaintiff Has Failed to Demonstrate that a New Trial is Warranted

Plaintiff does not challenge the jury's resolution of the evidence presented at trial. (Dkt. 380 at 11 ("Plaintiff is not questioning the jury's verdict.") ). In other words, Plaintiff does not challenge the weight the jury gave to the evidence presented at trial. Instead, Plaintiff identifies several issues that she contends prejudiced her ability to present a complete case to the jury.

As an initial matter, Plaintiff fails to provide citations to any relevant excerpts of the trial or pretrial records and appears to submit her motion based upon her own recollection of the various arguments presented and rulings issued at trial and the pretrial conference. Generally speaking, specific reliance upon the trial transcript is necessary to demonstrate one's entitlement to relief on a Rule 59 motion based upon determinations made at trial. See Ayala v. Rosales , No. 13 C 4425, 2015 WL 4127915, at *1 (N.D. Ill. July 8, 2015) (noting that "while the Court has attempted to the best of its ability to address [p]laintiff's claims on the merits," the plaintiff's "failure to provide all of the necessary record citations makes it impossible for this Court to properly address his claims of error," and thus, "any arguments lacking necessary record support are, in the first instances, denied as waived"); Ratliff v. City of Chicago , No. 10-CV-739, 2013 WL 3388745, at * 1 (N.D. Ill. July 8, 2013) (on a motion for a new trial, "to the extent that citation to the record would be necessary to support a position, [d]efendants' failure to cite to the trial record or the pretrial conference record will not be excused"); Parr v. Nicholls State Univ. , No. CIV.A. 09-3576, 2012 WL 1032905, at *3 (E.D. La. Mar. 27, 2012) (denying the motion for a new trial, noting that "without the benefit of citation to the trial transcript, the Court has no basis for determining that any error occurred"); Terranova v. Torres , No. 04-CV-2129 (CS), 2010 WL 11507383, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2010) (declining to grant the plaintiffs' motion for a new trial based upon challenged evidentiary rulings where the plaintiff failed to "cite pertinent sections of the trial transcript so as to identify the particular evidentiary rulings to which he refers, and does not provide any legal support for his arguments"), aff'd sub nom. Terranova v. New York , 676 F.3d 305 (2d Cir. 2012) ; Warren v. Thompson , 224 F.R.D. 236, 240 n.7 (D.D.C. 2004) ("A trial court is not required to parse through transcripts in an effort to identify the grounds of a post-trial motion." (quotation omitted) ), aff'd sub nom. Warren v. Leavitt , 264 F. App'x 9 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Nonetheless, the Court has considered the arguments raised in Plaintiff's post-verdict motion and finds that they do not demonstrate entitlement to a new trial.

For example, Plaintiff takes issue with several rulings precluding certain valuations of the personal property allegedly converted by Defendant. (See, e.g. , Dkt. 375-2 at 28-31). While the Court maintains that its trial and pretrial rulings were correct, because the jury issued a "no cause of action" verdict, and never reached the issue of damages, even assuming that such valuations should not have been excluded, any resulting error is harmless because their submission to the jury would not have influenced the verdict. See Heinemann v. Comput. Assocs. Int'l, Inc. , 319 F. App'x 591, 597 (9th Cir. 2009) (stating that any error caused by the preclusion of "evidence regarding [the plaintiff's] claims for emotional distress and punitive damages ... must be harmless because the jury never reached the question of damages"); Church Ins. Co. v. Trippe Mfg. Co. , 250 F. App'x 420, 422 (2d Cir. 2007) (stating that any error in the admission of "evidence concerning the amount of fire insurance compensation received by the Cathedral" would have "inevitably been harmless since the jury never reached the question of damages"); Tompkin v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. , 362 F.3d 882, 901 (6th Cir. 2004) ("To the extent that the evidence relates to punitive damages, any error was harmless as the jury did not reach the issue of damages."); Mraovic v. Elgin, Joliet & E. Ry. Co. , 897 F.2d 268, 271 (7th Cir. 1990) ("[P]resentation of evidence regarding the scope and effect of Mraovic's injuries assists the jury only in determining damages. As a matter of law, such testimony cannot be presumed to have any material effect on the jury's ruling on liability. Because the jury found Elgin not liable, the jury never reached the damages issue and the sanction was irrelevant." (citation omitted) ); accord In re Fosamax Prod. Liab. Litig. , 509 F. App'x 69, 73 (2d Cir. 2013) ("Because the jury found Merck not liable, it never reached the issue of damages. Accordingly, the failure to instruct on aggravation of a preexisting injury did not affect the jury's verdict.").

Plaintiff also takes issue with what she perceives as inconsistencies between the Court's evidentiary rulings at trial and the decisions issued on the parties' motions in limine . (See, e.g. , Dkt. 375-2 at 4-5, 7). The denial of a motion in limine to preclude evidence in no way eliminates the proponent's burden to lay a proper evidentiary foundation and otherwise demonstrate the admissibility of that evidence at trial. See Jimenez v. Hernandez , No. CIV. 06-1501 GAG, 2009 WL 921289, at * 1 (D.P.R. Mar. 31, 2009) (denying the defendant's motion in limine but explaining that "[t]his, of course, does not exempt in any way plaintiffs' burden a trial of having to lay the proper foundation" and demonstrate the relevance of the proffered evidence); Sanchez v. Echo, Inc. , No. CIV. 06-787, 2008 WL 2951339, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 9, 2008) (denying the plaintiff's motion in limine but reminding the defendants "that laying a proper foundation is a necessary precondition of the admissibility of such testimony at trial"). Nor does it preclude a defendant from raising additional objections to the admission of such evidence at the time it is proffered. See Saenz v. Reeves , No. 1:09-CV-00057-BAM PC, 2013 WL 2481733, at *8 (E.D. Cal. June 10, 2013) (denying the defendant's motion in limine to exclude certain documents but noting that the...