Karen Feld v. Kenneth Feld, 688 F.3d 779

Karen Feld sued her brother Kenneth Feld after he had her forcibly removed from his condominium's common areas.
Kenneth owned the Colonnade high-rise where the shiva took place and employed security guards to eject Karen.
Karen threw a wine glass and yelled; guards removed her, prompting suit for assault, battery, and false imprisonment.
Kenneth counterclaimed for trespass; district court held condo owners may use reasonable force to eject trespassers from common areas.
At trial, the jury ruled against both parties; no Rule 50(b) relief was sought; on appeal Karen challenged the use-of-force ruling.
The court analyzed whether pure legal error from summary judgment needed preservation via Rule 50 and the merits of the force exclusion issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a purely legal issue was preserved for appeal without a Rule 50 motion	Feld argues no Rule 50 motion needed for purely legal question	Feld contends preservation required (jurisdiction argument)	Rule 50 not required for purely legal issue
Whether a condominium owner may use force to eject a trespasser from common areas	Karen contends no privilege to use force	Kenneth argues DC law allows reasonable force to eject trespassers	DC law permits reasonable force to eject trespassers from common areas

Ortiz v. Jordan, 131 S. Ct. 884 (Supreme Court 2011) (preservation of purely legal arguments not clear at summary judgment)
Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394 (Supreme Court 2006) (summary judgment standards moot after trial for sufficiency)
Houskins v. Sheahan, 549 F.3d 480 (7th Cir. 2008) (purely legal issues may be preserved without Rule 50)
Banuelos v. Constr. Laborers’ Trust Funds for S. Cal., 382 F.3d 897 (9th Cir. 2004) (preservation of purely legal arguments on appeal)
Chemetall GMBH v. ZR Energy, Inc., 320 F.3d 714 (7th Cir. 2003) (Rule 50 motion not required to preserve legal issue)