Lorraine Smith v. Sidney Katz, 696 F. App'x 582

Smith worked in the Marshall Building (leased by the Government) from June 2006 to June 2009 and suffered respiratory problems exacerbated while at work. She had preexisting asthma/COPD history.
The Building experienced repeated water intrusion and poor ventilation; air sampling in June 2008 showed very high mold spore counts (up to ~47,000 spores/m3).
Katz (owner/lessor) hired contractors and oversaw a build-out through an agent (Ramirez); evidence showed defective construction/ductwork and inadequate waterproofing that contributed to chronic moisture and mold.
After a 5‑day jury trial (first trial) the jury awarded Smith $1,290,000 (economic $390,000; noneconomic $900,000). The district court granted remittitur to $150,000 (economic $50,000; noneconomic $100,000); Smith rejected it and demanded a new trial on damages.
On retrial limited to damages (second trial), the jury awarded $75,000 total ($20,000 economic; $55,000 noneconomic). The district court denied Smith’s motion for another new trial; both parties appealed (Katz also cross‑appealed Rule 50 issue).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Denial of Katz’s Rule 50(b) renewed JMOL	Smith: sufficiency of evidence supports liability; judgment should stand.	Katz: insufficient evidence to show duty/breach/proximate cause; JMOL warranted.	Affirmed denial of JMOL — sufficient evidence for jury on duty, breach, and causation.
2. Remittitur of the first jury verdict	Smith: remittitur was erroneous; original $1.29M should be reinstated.	Katz: first award excessive; remittitur appropriate (and should be reduced further).	District court did not abuse discretion in ordering remittitur from $1.29M to $150k.
3. Denial of Smith’s motion for a new trial after damages retrial (exclusion of expert testimony)	Smith: exclusion of certain experts’ causation testimony prejudiced her and warranted a new trial.	Katz: experts were excluded for failure to comply with Rule 26 deadlines; exclusion justified.	No abuse of discretion — district court properly excluded untimely expert opinion testimony under Rule 26.
4. Adequacy of jury instructions at retrial	Smith: jury should have been instructed to attribute damages only to the portion of injuries proximately caused by exposure.	Katz: instructions were proper and focused jury on damages only (liability already decided).	Instructions, read as a whole, fairly submitted the issues; no reversible error.

Cortez v. Trans Union, LLC, 617 F.3d 688 (3d Cir. 2010) (remittitur/new‑trial procedural principle explained)
Hetzel v. Prince William Cnty., 523 U.S. 208 (1998) (remittitur requires offering plaintiff a new trial option)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (standard for JMOL review; deference to jury credibility determinations)
Starceski v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 54 F.3d 1089 (3d Cir. 1995) (remittitur standard — jury awards must be supported by evidence)
Spence v. Board of Educ. of Christina Sch. Dist., 806 F.2d 1198 (3d Cir. 1986) (trial judge’s remittitur decision reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Evans v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 273 F.3d 346 (3d Cir. 2001) (appellate review of remittitur is "severely limited")
Avaya Inc. v. Telecom Labs, Inc., 838 F.3d 354 (3d Cir. 2016) (JMOL standard restated)
Lightning Lube, Inc. v. Witco Corp., 4 F.3d 1153 (3d Cir. 1993) (JMOL standard and deference to jury)
Konstantopoulos v. Westvaco Corp., 112 F.3d 710 (3d Cir. 1997) (exclusion of witnesses for scheduling/order violations reviewed for abuse of discretion)
In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 35 F.3d 717 (3d Cir. 1994) (courts have broad leeway to manage cases and exclude witnesses as sanction)
De Asencio v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 500 F.3d 361 (3d Cir. 2007) (review standards for jury instructions — consider instructions as a whole)