Pitts v. Spence
| Decision Date | 08 July 2010 |
| Docket Number | C.A. No. 05-185-JJF. |
| Citation | 722 F.Supp.2d 476 |
| Parties | Courtland C. PITTS, Plaintiff, v. Gregory SPENCE, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Delaware |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
John W. Shaw, Esq.; Karen E. Keller, Esq.; James L. Higgins, Esq. of Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE, for Plaintiff.
Ralph K. Durstein, III, Esq. of Department of Justice, State of Delaware, Wilmington, Delaware, for Defendant.
Presently before the Court is Defendant Corporal Gregory Spence's Motion For Judgment As A Matter Of Law Or New Trial (D.I. 111), Plaintiff Courtland C. Pitts's Motion For Attorneys' Fees And Expenses (D.I. 112), and third party Real World Law PC's Motion Nunc Pro Tunc for Attorneys' Fees And Expenses (D.I. 128). For the reasons discussed, Defendant's Motion For Judgment As A Matter Of Law will be granted, Plaintiff's Motion For Attorneys' Fees And Expenses will be denied, and Real World Law PC's Motion Nunc Pro Tunc for Attorneys' Fees And Expenses will be denied.
Plaintiff, Courtland C. Pitts (“Mr. Pitts”), filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights against Defendant, Corporal Gregory Spence (“Corporal Spence”), and other defendants on March 25, 2005. On July 25, 2005, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion dismissing Mr. Pitts' claims against the State of Delaware, the Delaware State Police and numerous other defendants as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). (D.I. 6.) Mr. Pitts proceeded to trial against Corporal Spence on claims of false arrest, malicious prosecution, illegal search and seizure, and equal protection violations. A jury trial was held, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Corporal Spence on the false arrest and malicious prosecution claims and against Corporal Spence on the illegal search and seizure and equal protection claims. (D.I. 107.) Judgment was entered in favor of Mr. Pitts and against Corporal Spence in accordance with the jury verdict. (D.I. 110.)
Shortly thereafter, Corporal Spence filed the pending Motion For Judgment As A Matter Of Law Or New Trial, and Mr. Pitts filed the pending Motion For Attorneys' Fees And Expenses. Third party Real World Law, PC (“Real World Law”) also filed the pending Motion Nunc Pro Tunc For Attorneys' Fees And Expenses.
This litigation stems from an altercation between Mr. Pitts and James Mitchem (“Mr. Mitchem”), the owner of Mitchem's Auto Body Shop. The altercation took place on the premises of the auto body shop on April 3, 2003. Mr. Pitts had gone to the shop to express his dissatisfaction with work that was done to his car. 1 A verbal dispute between Mr. Pitts and Mr. Mitchem soon escalated to a physical altercation. 2 The record contains conflicting testimony as to who touched whom first, 3 however, it is clear that Mr. Pitts and Mr. Mitchem sparred for several minutes before Mr. Pitts punched Mr. Mitchem in either the face or mouth, and Mr. Mitchem fell to the ground. 4 Daniel Wykpisz (“Mr. Wykpisz”), a body shop employee, testified that he called 911 at this time. 5 Mr. Pitts was not injured. 6
According to Mr. Pitts, Mr. Wykpisz was watching the fight from about ten to fifteen yards away and did not try to intervene initially. 7 However, when Mr. Mitchem was knocked to the ground, Mr. Wykpisz grabbed a baseball bat, yelled at Mr. Pitts, and chased him into the adjoining industrial park. 8 Mr. Mitchem testified that at this point, he called the police. 9 While fleeing from Mr. Wykpisz, Mr. Pitts picked up a board to defend himself, but did not swing it. 10 Once Mr. Wykpisz retreated, Mr. Pitts returned to his car to call 911. 11 Mr. Pitts testified that Mr. Mitchem threatened him with a gun, but Mr. Pitts admitted he never informed Corporal Spence of that threat. 12
Corporal Spence was the first officer to arrive at the scene. Mr. Pitts testified that he approached Corporal Spence's patrol vehicle, waving to identify himself as the person that called 911. 13 Mr. Pitts and Corporal Spence agree that Corporal Spence did not immediately exit his patrol vehicle, but rather continued the communications he was involved in on his radio. 14 Mr. Pitts testified that when Corporal Spence continued to use his radio, he said to Corporal Spence, “If I was a white guy, you would have been out of that car, and I would have been treated differently.” 15 At this point, Corporal Spence exited his vehicle, and he and Mr. Pitts engaged in a verbal exchange. According to Mr. Pitts' testimony, Corporal Spence became “loud, nasty, and aggressive,” and “got in my face ... almost chest-to-chest.” 16 Corporal Spence testified that he was concerned for his safety because of Mr. Pitt's behavior and that he explained to Mr. Pitts that he would be with him shortly. 17
Corporal Spence testified he instructed Mr. Pitts to quiet down or he would be arrested. 18 Corporal Spence testified that Mr. Pitts refused to comply, 19 so Corporal Spence handcuffed Mr. Pitts and put him in the patrol vehicle. According to Mr. Pitts, while being placed in the patrol vehicle, he told Corporal Spence that he was hurt and that his circulation was being cut off by the handcuffs. 20 Corporal Spence further testified that he asked Mr. Pitts if he wanted to talk, but Mr. Pitts refused. 21 Additionally, Mr. Pitts testified that he declined to give a statement when questioned by another police officer after interviewing at the police station. 22
After Mr. Pitts was placed in the patrol vehicle, Corporal Spence interviewed Mr. Mitchem and Mr. Wykpisz. 23 Mr. Mitchem was also arrested, however he was handcuffed by an another trooper who had been dispatched to assist Corporal Spence. 24
After Mr. Pitts was taken to the state police troop, an inventory search was conducted of his car and it was towed to storage. 25 Mr. Pitts testified that he was told that his car was towed “for its protection.” 26 Although Mr. Mitchem was also arrested, his car, which was parked on his body shop property, was not towed. 27
Mr. Pitts was charged with aggravated menacing, two counts of terroristic threatening, assault in the third degree, disorderly conduct, and criminal trespass. 28 Mr. Mitchem was charged with disorderly conduct, offensive touching, and criminal mischief. 29
Pursuant to Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may grant judgment as a matter of law if “the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis” to find for a party on a given issue after that party has been fully heard. Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a). In determining whether sufficient evidence was presented to support a jury verdict, a court must give the non-moving party, “as verdict winner, the benefit of all logical inferences that could be drawn from the evidence presented, resolve all conflicts in the evidence in his favor and, in general, view the record in the light most favorable to him.” Williamson v. Consol. Rail Corp., 926 F.2d 1344, 1348 (3d Cir.1991). A court must not weigh the evidence, evaluate the credibility of the witnesses, or substitute its own version of the facts for the jury's findings. Marra v. Phila. Hous. Auth., 497 F.3d 286, 300 (3d Cir.2007). Although a court should grant judgment as a matter of law sparingly, it is appropriate where only a “scintilla of evidence” supports the verdict, or where “the record is critically deficient of the minimum quantum of evidence” needed to support the verdict. Johnson v. Campbell, 332 F.3d 199, 204 (3d Cir.2003) (citing Gomez v. Allegheny Health Servs., Inc., 71 F.3d 1079, 1083 (3d Cir.1995)).
Pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, after a jury trial, a court may grant a new trial to any party on all or some issues “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). Among the most common reasons for granting a new trial are the following: (1) the jury's verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence, and a new trial must be granted to prevent a miscarriage of justice; (2) newly discovered evidence exists that would likely alter the outcome of the trial; (3) improper conduct by an attorney or the court unfairly influenced the verdict; or (4) the jury's verdict was facially inconsistent. Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Intern., Inc., 585 F.Supp.2d 568, 580-81 (D.Del.2008). While the decision to grant a new trial lies solely within the discretion of the district court, Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 36, 101 S.Ct. 188, 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980), a court should not disturb the verdict unless the verdict “on the record, cries out to be overturned or shocks the conscience.” Williamson, 926 F.2d at 1353 (citing EEOC v. Del. Dep't of Health & Social Serv., 865 F.2d 1408, 1413 (3d Cir.1989)).
By his Motion, Corporal Spence requests judgment as a matter of law, or alternatively, a new trial on both claims in which the jury found in Mr. Pitts' favor, specifically, the illegal search and seizure claim and the equal protection claim. The Court will address Corporal Spence's arguments pertaining to each of these claims in turn.
With respect to the jury's verdict in favor of Mr. Pitts on the illegal search and seizure claim, Corporal Spence contends that (1) the jury's verdict is facially inconsistent insofar as the jury found in favor of Corporal Spence on Mr. Pitts' false arrest claim and in favor of Mr. Pitts on the illegal search and seizure claim, and (2) insufficient evidence supports the jury's verdict on the illegal search and seizure...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pitts v. State
...Auto Body Shop, and that Corporal Spence's personal safety or the safety of others at the scene could be in danger.” Pitts v. Spence, 722 F.Supp.2d 476, 483 (D.Del.2010). The Court therefore held that Spence's detention of Pitts was reasonable as a matter of law and that there was insuffici......