Norman v. Elkin
849 F. Supp. 2d 418
| D. Del. | 2012Background
- Plaintiff Jeffery M. Norman filed suit in Delaware Chancery Dec 2, 2005, asserting nine claims against Elkin, Sorkin, and The Elkin Group; case was removed to federal court in Jan 2006.
- A three-day jury trial awarded Plaintiff on breach of contract, fraud, and conversion; damages totaled $191,819, slightly over Plaintiff’s 25% share.
- Post-trial motions challenged fraud, conversion, and breach of contract verdicts; the court vacated fraud and conversion but held breach of contract not time-barred, reducing the verdict to $1.
- Defendants’ post-trial challenges led to July 30, 2010 order vacating liabilities on some claims and affirming the breach of contract finding only as to timing, resulting in a $1 verdict on breach damages.
- On Aug 27, 2010 Plaintiff moved to alter or amend or for a new trial (damages); briefing concluded Oct 11, 2010.
- Court grants new trial limited to damages for breach of contract; other relief denied, Rule 11 sanctions avoided, and new trial ordered for proper damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial estoppel applicability | Norman argues estoppel does not apply to damages claim | Elkin/Defendants contend Norman’s positions are inconsistent | Estoppel does not apply |
| Rule 59(e) reconsideration merits | Court should amend to correct clear error/injustice | No clear legal error; damages stand as awarded | No basis to amend under Rule 59(e) |
| Rule 60(b)(5) relief applicability | Relief from judgment appropriate due to lack of prospective effect | Damages judgment not prospective | Rule 60(b)(5) does not apply to present damages judgment |
| New trial on damages for breach of contract | Weight of the evidence supports a higher damages award | Damages supported by record; no miscarriage of justice | New trial granted on damages for breach of contract |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Fiorelli, 337 F.3d 282 (3d Cir.2003) (purpose of Rule 59/e and Rule 60(b) distinctions; reconsideration standards)
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (U.S. 2005) (Rule 60(b) relief; fraud/mistrial contexts)
- Frew v. Hawkins, 540 U.S. 431 (U.S. 2004) (prospective applicability under Rule 60(b)(5))
- Moolenaar v. Gov’t of Virgin Islands, 822 F.2d 1342 (3d Cir.1987) (extraordinary circumstances standard for Rule 60(b))
- Pierce Assocs., Inc. v. Nemours Found., 865 F.2d 530 (3d Cir.1988) (standards governing reconsideration standards under Rule 59(e))
- Brambles USA, Inc. v. Blocker, 735 F.Supp. 1239 (D.Del.1990) (reconsideration substance and scope)
- Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend, 557 U.S. 404 (U.S. 2009) (damages are the province of the jury; not to be disturbed lightly)
- Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., 523 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1998) (jury determines damages; not subject to reconsideration absent error)
- Ogden v. Keystone Residence, 226 F.Supp.2d 588 (M.D.Pa.2002) (Rule 59(e) standards; dissatisfaction with damages not a basis)
- Soto v. United States, 2011 WL 4929423 (D.Del.2011) (non-manifest injustice basis for Rule 59(e) relief)
- Price v. Del. Dep’t of Correction, 40 F.Supp.2d 544 (D.Del.1999) (weight of the evidence standard for new trial)
- Williamson v. Consol. Rail Corp., 926 F.2d 1344 (3d Cir.1991) (standard for new trial when verdict shocks conscience)