Kingsley Capital Management LLC v. Sly, 2:10-cv-02243

Plaintiffs moved for a new trial and/or to alter or amend judgment after a two-step jury verdict found liability but awarded no damages.
The jury initially addressed six liability theories and six damage theories; the court bifurcated liability and damages to reduce confusion.
The Arizona Securities Act claim was found in the plaintiffs' favor, but the jury awarded $0 damages on that claim via supplemental verdict questions.
After deliberations, the court reserved judgment on the securities claim and later granted post-verdict judgment as a matter of law against the securities claim for lack of materiality.
Plaintiffs declined to request further jury deliberations before discharge, thereby waiving objections to any inconsistent verdicts.
Dr. Kingsley seeks either damages of $1,227,916 or a new trial on damages; the court denied both the motion for new trial and the alter/ amend judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the damages verdict is inconsistent with liability	Kingsley argues no damages despite liability should be remediable.	Sly contends waivers preclude challenge to an inconsistent verdict after discharge.	Waived; no new trial granted due to waiver on discharge.
Whether the court should grant a new trial on damages	Kingsley asserts the injury and damages were proven; new trial warranted.	Sly argues the verdict and post-verdict judgment on the securities claim foreclose a new damages trial.	Denied; post-verdict judgment and waiver foreclose new damages trial.
Whether the court properly denied alter or amend under Rule 59/50 framework	Kingsley seeks amended judgment to award damages as a matter of law.	Sly maintains Rule 50(b) waiver and lack of newly discovered evidence/changes in law.	Denied; amendment treated as improper post-judgment judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Whether the waiver rule applies to a damages-liability inconsistency in this case	Hazle exception could excuse failure to object to inconsistency.	Hazle does not apply because verdict included both liability and damages.	Waiver applies; objection not raised before discharge.

Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Prods., 212 F.3d 493 (9th Cir. 2000) (new trial standards mirror federal practice for errors and miscarriage of justice)
Landes Const. Co., Inc. v. Royal Bank of Canada, 833 F.2d 1365 (9th Cir. 1987) (definite and firm conviction of a jury mistake required for new trial)
Hazle v. Crofoot, 727 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2013) (damages-only issue differs from inconsistent liability-damages verdicts)
Kode v. Carlson, 596 F.3d 608 (9th Cir. 2010) (waiver of objections to inconsistent verdicts unless raised prior to discharge)
Philippine Nat. Oil Co. v. Garrett Corp, 724 F.2d 803 (9th Cir. 1984) (requirement to object to inconsistency before jury discharge)
Janes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 279 F.3d 883 (9th Cir. 2002) (preservation of Rule 50 objections requires timely motion at close of evidence)