ING Global v. United Parcel Service Oasis Supply Corp.
757 F.3d 92
2d Cir.2014Background
- ING sued UPS for breach of contract related to supplies of Reusable Network Containers (RNCs) under Georgia law.
- Jury found in ING's favor on breach and awarded ING damages and attorney’s fees.
- UPS moved post-judgment under Rule 59(e) to set aside the attorney’s fees or for a new trial on that issue.
- District court set aside the attorney’s fees, finding the verdict lacked legal support and manifest injustice.
- UPS did not file a Rule 50(a) pre-verdict motion nor object to the jury instructions on bad faith during trial.
- Court held that the district court erred in disturbing the verdict and remanded to reinstate verdict and address fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 59(e) relief vs. Rule 50 procedures | ING | UPS | Rule 59(e) cannot substitute for Rule 50 without manifest injustice |
| Whether setting aside verdict based on lack of legal support was proper | ING argues evidence supported insurance of bad faith | UPS contends no legal support | Not manifest injustice; keep verdict binding |
| Whether district court erred in treating Rule 59(e) as Rule 50 judgment | ING | UPS | Court erred; Rule 50 standards apply de novo on appeal |
| New trial on fees | ING | UPS | No abuse of discretion to deny new trial; but remand on fees is proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Lore v. City of Syracuse, 670 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2012) (Rule 50(a) precedence and necessity for proper sequencing)
- Rothstein v. Carriere, 373 F.3d 275 (2d Cir. 2004) (manifest injustice standard for weight of evidence)
- Raedle v. Credit Agricole Indosuez, 670 F.3d 411 (2d Cir. 2012) (deference to jury credibility; Rule 59(a) discretion)
- Schwartz v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 539 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2008) (Rule 59(e) scope and proper use to correct clear error or manifest injustice)
- Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471 (Supreme Court 2008) (limitations on judicial relief under Rule 59(e))