McDowell v. Livonia Hotel Bus.
| Decision Date | 25 July 2022 |
| Docket Number | 19-10217 |
| Parties | RAYMOND MCDOWELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LIVONIA HOTEL BUSINESS, INC., et al. Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
ORDER: (1) DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO ALTER JUDGMENT AS TO PLAINTIFF DORSEY BASED ON PLAINTIFF MCDOWELL'S ADJUDICATED FAULT [ECF No. 101]; (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF MCDOWELL'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 106]; (3) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW REGARDING DAMAGES [ECF NO. 102]; (4) DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW REGARDING DUTY AND CAUSATION [ECF NO. 103] (5) GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR EXPENSES AND ATTORNEY'S FEES PURSUANT TO FRCP 37(c)(1)(a) [ECF NO. 95]; and (6) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR REVIEW OF PLAINTIFFS' BILL OF COSTS AND OBJECTIONS TO THE SAME [ECF NO. 107].
I. Introduction
Raymond McDowell and Taj Dorsey (“Plaintiffs”) were truckers from New Jersey hired to make a delivery in Michigan. They booked a room at Defendant America's Best hotel (“America's Best”). After arriving in the Detroit area, McDowell hired Antonio Fowler-Mitchell (“Fowler-Mitchell”) from Craigslists.com to help with the offloading. In the early morning hours of February 3, 2018, Fowler-Mitchell broke into the hotel room where McDowell and Dorsey stayed. He and two unknown individuals assaulted and robbed them at gunpoint. Fowler-Mitchell is now in prison for his crimes.
Plaintiffs sued Defendants for negligence. They allege that Defendant Edward Makmoura, the front desk clerk at America's Best gave Fowler-Mitchell a key to their room. Plaintiffs believe this act facilitated the break-in, and that Defendants breached the duty they owed to Plaintiffs as innkeepers.
During trial from March 22-28, 2022, Defendants submitted evidence of McDowell's own negligence. On the third day of trial Defendants submitted a proposed verdict form that would have informed the jury that the Court would reduce Dorsey's damages in proportion to the percentage of fault allocated to McDowell for his own injuries. The Court rejected this proposal, ruling that such a reduction would be improper under Michigan law.
The jury awarded McDowell $140,000 in lost wages and $5,000 in property damages. However, the jury found McDowell 80% at fault for his own injuries and reduced his damages in proportion to his comparative fault. [ECF No. 90 PageID.2668]. It allocated 20% fault against Defendants for McDowell's injury.
The jury awarded Dorsey $63,333 in lost wages, $1,000 in property damages, $136,000 in past non-economic damages, and $36,000 in future non-economic damages. It found no fault on the part of Dorsey and allocated 100% fault to Defendants for Dorsey's injuries. The jury made no allocation of fault to McDowell for Dorsey's injuries and Defendants never requested that it be done.
Defendants filed five post-trial motions and Plaintiffs filed one. Two motions seek relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). In ECF No. 101, Defendants' Motion to Alter Judgment As to Plaintiff Dorsey Based On Plaintiff McDowell's Adjudicated Fault, Defendants ask the Court to reduce Dorsey's damages based on the negligence of McDowell. On the other hand, in ECF 106, Plaintiff McDowell's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, McDowell asks the Court to remove an 80% reduction the jury subtracted from his damages based on the comparative fault the jury allocated to him for his own injuries.
In Part I (pp. 5-23), the Court addresses these two motions together since they both require analysis under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e).
In Part II (pp. 24-46), the Court addresses the two defense motions filed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b). In ECF No. 102, Defendants' Motion of Judgment as a Matter of Law Regarding Damages, Defendants say they are entitled to judgment on McDowell's claim for wage loss damages and Dorsey's claim for future damages. They argue that proofs on both claims were speculative and did not rise above conjecture.
In ECF No. 103, Defendants' Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Regarding Duty and Causation, Defendants say they are entitled to judgment and ask the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims in their entirety. They believe Plaintiffs presented only speculative proof on both duty and causation.
In Part III (pp. 47-58), the Court addresses the two motions concerned with costs. In ECF No. 95, Defendants' Motion for Expenses and Attorney's Fees Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c)(1)(a), Defendants ask the Court to award them certain expenses and attorney fees based on Plaintiffs' failure to timely identify and disclose an expert and his reports. In ECF No. 107, Defendants' Motion Seeking Review of Plaintiffs' Bill of Costs and Objection to Same, Defendants object to Plaintiffs' proposed taxation of costs, and ask the Court to review and adjust the Bill of Costs.
Finally, in Part IV (pp. 58-59), the Court concludes the opinion.
For the following reasons, the Court DENIES ECF No. 101 and ECF No. 106. The Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART ECF No. 102. The Court DENIES ECF No. 103. The Court GRANTS ECF No. 95. Finally, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART ECF No.107.
In a diversity case, federal law governs the district court's decision whether to grant a new trial and it is within the sound discretion of the trial court to make this determination. Conte v. Gen. Housewares Corp., 215 F.3d 628, 637 (6th Cir. 2000). A motion to alter or amend a judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) asks a federal district court to correct a substantive judicial error or mistake within 28 days after entry of judgment. (Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) advisory committee's note to 1946 amendment); see White v. N. H. Dep't of Emp't. Sec., 455 U.S. 445, 451 (1982).
To be successful on a motion to alter or amend a judgment, the moving party must establish an intervening change in controlling law, newly discovered evidence, manifest injustice, or a clear error of law or fact that is so convincing that it induces the court to revise its earlier decision. Roger Miller Music, Inc. v. Sony/ATW Publ'g, LLC, 477 F.3d 383, 395 (6th Cir. 2007); see Schiller v. Physicians Res. Grp. Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 568 (5th Cir. 2003); see also Holland v. Big River Minerals Corp., 181 F.3d 597, 605 (4th Cir. 1999).
Defendants say the Court made a “clear error of law” in violation of Michigan's comparative fault legislative scheme when it denied their request to submit a verdict form notifying the jury that the Court would reduce Dorsey's damages by the percentage of fault attributable to McDowell for his own injuries. [ECF No. 101, PageID.3207]. That ruling was not a clear error of law.
Plaintiffs filed their complaint more than two years ago. In answering the complaint, Defendants asserted an affirmative defense: “the negligence, gross negligence, and/or willful or wanton misconduct of the Plaintiffs and/or others not including these Defendants acted as an intervening cause sufficient to bar any claim against these Defendants.” [ECF No. 9, PageID.74].
Yet, in various iterations of draft Joint Final Pretrial Orders (“JFPTO”) submitted and the final one entered by the Court, Defendants failed to mention this defense. It is bedrock law that the JFPTO governs trial proceedings and supersedes earlier pleadings. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(e); Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. 457, 474 (2007).
Defendants also failed to give proper notice and preserve the possibility of an allocation of fault against Fowler-Mitchell as a nonparty at fault, MCL 600.2957(2); MCR 2.112(K)(3)(a).
So, as much as Defendants bemoan the fact that the jury did not reduce the Dorsey award in proportion to McDowell's negligence, they failed to follow proper procedure, propose proper instructions, and preserve their affirmative defenses that McDowell was a cause of Dorsey's injuries or that Fowler-Mitchell was responsible for the harm.
Defendants requested a comparative negligence jury instruction that was given to the jury. But if Defendants' intention was to demonstrate that McDowell proximately caused Dorsey's injuries, they abysmally failed. This one instruction was insufficient to guide the jury because Defendants did not request instructions concerning: (1) any duty McDowell may have owed Dorsey; (2) what conduct on the part of McDowell breached any duty he may have owed Dorsey; or (3) how the jury could allocate McDowell's fault if it believed he caused some or all of Dorsey's harm.
Instead, at the eleventh hour and with no supporting instructions, Defendants submitted the proposed verdict form discussed earlier. This would have improperly stated the law. The Court declined to use the form, ruling: [ECF No. 84, PageID.2164].
Defendants misapprehend the Michigan's comparative fault scheme. They rely on several comparative fault sta...
To continue reading
Request your trial