965 F.3d 404
5th Cir.2020Background
- Acadian (Louisiana lab) and QT (Texas lab) entered two reciprocal specimen-referral agreements (one where Acadian referred specimens to QT and split collections 50/50; the other where QT referred specimens to Acadian and agreed to remit 65% after billing fees collected by Medcross).
- QT, which had Medcross bill and deposit collections into QT’s account, failed to remit most sums owed to Acadian for thousands of tests; one example: QT collected at least $1,565,428 for 2,679 specimens but paid Acadian only $73,134.34.
- Acadian sued for breach of both agreements; the district court granted partial summary judgment finding QT liable on both contracts but left some damages questions (and an effective date issue) to the jury.
- The district court excluded QT’s proffered evidence about third-party ventures (ToxNet/Zenith) as irrelevant to damages; a jury then awarded Acadian smaller damages than Acadian sought; final judgment reflected only the jury verdict and did not reconcile an earlier summary-judgment damages computation.
- Acadian did not file Rule 50/59/58/59(e)/60 motions after trial to seek a higher damages judgment or to correct the apparent inconsistency; both parties appealed—QT challenging liability and evidentiary rulings; Acadian seeking a larger judgment or correction to reflect the earlier summary-judgment calculation.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed: summary judgment of QT’s liability stands, exclusion of third-party evidence was not an abuse of discretion, and Acadian’s requests to increase or correct judgment were procedurally forfeited or barred by the Seventh Amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether QT breached the QT Referred Specimens Agreement | Acadian: QT collected funds and failed to remit the agreed share; customary billing clause meant QT/Medcross would bill and remit | QT: contract required Acadian to use its own customary billing, so QT had no obligation to remit | Court: Contract ambiguous but parties’ conduct showed QT/Medcross handled billing; summary judgment for breach affirmed |
| Whether QT breached the Acadian Referred Specimens Agreement (suspensive conditions) | Acadian: it performed and is owed payment; provisions were not suspensive conditions | QT: Acadian failed to satisfy conditions precedent (forms, insurance, cooperation), excusing QT’s payment duty | Court: Louisiana disfavors suspensive construction; QT bore burden to prove nonfulfillment and offered no evidence—summary judgment for breach affirmed |
| Admissibility of evidence about third-party ventures (ToxNet/Zenith) | Acadian: (implicit) such evidence irrelevant and prejudicial | QT: such evidence showed scheme/subterfuge bearing on damages or liability | Court: Exclusion not an abuse of discretion—evidence lacked relevance to damages owed under the contracts |
| Whether appellate court can increase jury damages or enforce earlier summary-judgment damages | Acadian: verdict unsupported; appellate court should amend judgment to reflect correct/higher damages (or Judge Brady’s earlier calculation) | QT: Seventh Amendment and procedural rules bar increasing jury award; final judgment controls | Court: Cannot increase jury award (Seventh Amendment); Acadian forfeited Rule 50/59/58/59(e)/60 remedies in district court and thus cannot obtain relief on appeal; alternative remedies existed but weren’t used |
Key Cases Cited
- Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 U.S. 474 (Supreme Court 1935) (Seventh Amendment bars increasing jury awards on appeal)
- Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394 (Supreme Court 2006) (forfeiture of JMOL/Rule 50 rights if no pre-verdict motion made)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (Supreme Court 1986) (nonmovant must do more than show metaphysical doubt to resist summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Supreme Court 1986) (summary-judgment standard on disputed facts)
- Mumblow v. Monroe Broad., Inc., 401 F.3d 616 (5th Cir. 2005) (discussion of suspensive conditions under Louisiana law)
- Winchester v. U.S. Att’y for S. Dist. of Tex., 68 F.3d 947 (5th Cir. 1995) (district court retains jurisdiction to consider post-judgment motions during appeal)