WM Mobile Bay Envtl. Ctr., Inc. v. City of Mobile Solid Waste Auth.

• Decision Date: 13 August 2015
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 13-0434-KD-N
• Parties: WM MOBILE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER, INC., Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF MOBILE SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama

WM MOBILE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER, INC., Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF MOBILE SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 13-0434-KD-N

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

August 13, 2015

ORDER

This action is before the Court on the Defendant City of Mobile Solid Waste Authority's renewed Rule 50(b) motion and alternative Rule 59(a) motion for a new trial, memorandum in support, notice, and supplement (docs. 187, 188, 189, 193), Plaintiff WM Mobile Bay Environmental Center, Inc.'s response (doc. 191), and Defendant's reply (doc. 192). Upon consideration and for the reasons set forth herein Defendant's motions are DENIED with the exception of the motions as to Count X, which remain under submission.

I. Renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Rule 50(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for renewing the motion for judgment as a matter of law after trial and for an alternative motion for a new trial. The Rule sets forth as follows:

(b) Renewing the Motion After Trial; Alternative Motion for a New Trial. If the court does not grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law made under Rule 50(a), the court is considered to have submitted the action to the jury subject to the court's later deciding the legal questions raised by the motion. No later than 28 days after the entry of judgment--or if the motion addresses a jury issue not decided by a verdict, no later than 28 days after the jury was discharged--the movant may file a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and mayinclude an alternative or joint request for a new trial under Rule 59. In ruling on the renewed motion, the court may:

(1) allow judgment on the verdict, if the jury returned a verdict;

(2) order a new trial; or

(3) direct the entry of judgment as a matter of law.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b).

"Judgment as a matter of law is appropriate only when the facts and inferences [construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party] point so overwhelmingly in favor of one party that reasonable people could not arrive at a contrary verdict." Smith v. City of New Smyrna Beach, 588 Fed.Appx. 965, 974 (11th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). "When a court considers a motion for judgment as a matter of law—even after the jury has rendered a verdict—only the sufficiency of the evidence matters. The jury's findings are irrelevant." Connelly v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, 764 F. 3d 1358, 1363 (11th Cir. 2014) (citations omitted).

"The question before the district court regarding a motion for judgment as a matter of law remains whether the evidence is 'legally sufficient to find for the party on that issue.' " Collins v. Marriott International, Inc., 749 F.3d 951, 957 (11th Cir. 2014) (quoting Chaney v. City of Orlando, 483 F.3d 1221, 1227 (11th Cir.2007) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1)). "[T]he court should review all of the evidence in the record," but in doing so, "the court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and it may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence." Collins, 749 F. 3d at 957 (quoting Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150, 120 S. Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000)). Thus, a jury verdict "must be left intact if there is evidence from which the decision maker ... reasonably could have resolved the matter the way it did." Atchafalaya Marine, LLC v. NationalUnion Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 959 F.Supp.2d 1313, 1325 (S.D. Ala. 2013) (quoting Rodriguez v. Farm Stores Grocery, Inc., 518 F.3d 1259, 1264 (11th Cir.2008)). Moreover, "that Rule 50(b) uses the word 'renewed' makes clear that a Rule 50(b) motion should be decided in the same way it would have been decided prior to the jury's verdict, and that the jury's particular findings are not germane to the legal analysis." Connelly, 764 F. 3d. at 1363 (quoting Chaney v. City of Orlando, Fla., 483 F.3d 1221, 1228 (11th Cir. 2007)).

A. Defendant's argument that there was no substantial evidence supporting the verdict for Plaintiff.

Defendant argues that "there was no substantial evidence supporting the verdict for the plaintiff." (Doc. 187, p. 1, ¶ 1) In support, Defendant "incorporates each ground stated" in its oral motions for judgment as a matter of law made during trial. (Id.) Thus, to the extent that the renewed Rule 50(b) motion is based upon incorporation of arguments made in support of the oral motions, and not on specific arguments raised in the brief in support of the renewed motion, the renewed motion is denied based on grounds previously stated on the record.

B. Defendant's renewed motion as to Counts I, III, and IV.

Defendant argues that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to the breach of contract claims raised in Counts I regarding the price adjustment for waste disposal at the landfill, Count III regarding reimbursement for capital expenditures, and Count IV regarding reimbursement for increased operating costs due to changes in laws, regulations, and ordinances effective after the date of the contract. Defendant points out that the 1993 contract made Plaintiff responsible for documenting, to Defendant's reasonable satisfaction, the basis for a rate adjustment and reimbursement. Defendant argues that the evidence at trial, specifically the testimony of Plaintiff's corporate representative, established that the documentation necessary to support a rate adjustment and reimbursement and requested by Defendant was not producedbefore the lawsuit was filed. Thus, Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed as a matter of law to comply with the terms of the contract, and the verdict for Plaintiff on Counts I, III and IV cannot stand.

Upon consideration, and for the reasons stated in Plaintiff's response, the Court finds that Defendant's renewed motion as to Counts I, III, and IV is due to be denied. Specifically, there was sufficient evidence of the history of the formal written requests and supporting documentation that was provided to Defendant from September 30, 2010 through the August 2013 board meeting, from which a reasonable jury could find that Defendant breached the contract and failed to negotiate in good faith. Accordingly, because a jury's verdict "must be left intact if there is evidence from which the decision maker ... reasonably could have resolved the matter the way it did," Atchafalaya Marine, LLC, 959 F.Supp.2d at 1325, the renewed motion as to these Counts is denied.

C. Sufficiency of the evidence in support of Plaintiff's claim for lost profits in Count X

Defendant renews its motion for judgment as a matter of law on basis that there was not substantial evidence supporting the verdict for Plaintiff's claim for lost profits resulting from Defendant's diversion of waste to other landfills.

At trial, Michael Bass, Plaintiff's Financial Analyst testified that as an employee of Plaintiff, he prepared and reviewed Plaintiff's financial statements and financial forecasts and routinely reviewed historical financial data including profitability. Bass testified that to calculate the lost profits from the diversion of waste, for the period of September 2007 through April 2011, he used the tonnage of waste sent to other facilities from a report provided by the City of Mobile. Specifically, he multiplied the tonnage times the tipping rates in effect and came up with gross revenue that would have been received had the waste been delivered toPlaintiff's landfill. For the remainder of 2012 through 2014, Bass did not have a report from the City as to the tonnage. Rather, he "took a monthly average" from the September 2007 through April 2012 time period and "multiplied that to the remaining months of 2012, and the 12 months of 2013 and the 12 months of 2014" to compute a gross revenue. (Doc. 183, p. 224-234)

Relying on Plaintiff's monthly income statements to determine costs, Bass deducted only the incremental costs per ton that he believed would have been increased due to the additional tonnage - capping (putting a synthetic liner over the cells in the landfill), closure and post closure (maintenance after capping) and depletion (amortization of future costs for adding this tonnage including liners, excavation and cell construction) - and deducted the royalty owed to Defendant, to calculate the lost profits. Bass testified that other costs were not deducted - fuel, equipment, labor (no additional employees would have been added nor any additional hours worked) because those fixed costs would not increase with additional tonnage. (Doc. 183, p. 235-239)

Defendant argues that the Court should discredit Bass' testimony. However, credibility determination are reserved to the jury and the Court should not "weigh conflicting evidence and inferences". Daniec v. Boatarama, Inc., 588 Fed.Appx. 947, 949 (11^th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). As previously stated, the issue before the Court on a motion for judgment as a matter of law is whether the evidence is " 'legally sufficient to find for the party on that issue.' " Collins, 749 F.3d at 957 (citations omitted). Further, the Court must draw "all reasonable inferences in favor of" Plaintiff and not make any "credibility determinations or weigh the evidence." Collins, 749 F. 3d at 957 (citation omitted).

In this action, Plaintiff claimed lost profits as a result of Defendant's failure to perform under the contract - deposit all City of Mobile solid waste at Plaintiff's landfill. Lost profitshave been interpreted as the net profits after deducting costs that would have been incurred had the party in breach actually performed under the contract. International Paper Company v. Madison Oslin Incorporated, 985 So. 2d 879, 890-891 (Ala. 2007). To recover lost profits, Plaintiff must allege and prove "not only (a) what he would have received from the performance so prevented, but also (b) what such performance would have cost him (or the value to him thereof). Unless he proves both of...