Park West Galleries, Inc. v. Bruce Hochman
692 F.3d 539
6th Cir.2012Background
- Park West Galleries sued Franks, Global Fine Art Registry, LLC, Hochman, and Phillips in federal court on defamation-related claims arising from FAR articles.
- The consolidated trial occurred March 15–April 19, 2010, with Park West repeatedly objecting to defense misconduct and the court issuing warnings and sanctions.
- The jury returned verdict for the defendants on defamation, tortious interference, and civil conspiracy; Park West prevailed on GFAR’s Lanham Act counterclaim and was awarded $500,000.
- On May 11, 2010, Park West moved for judgment as a matter of law and/or a new trial under Rule 59; the district court granted a new trial as to GFAR, Franks, and Phillips on August 16, 2010 due to pervasive misconduct.
- On October 7, 2010, GFAR, Franks, and Phillips moved to reinstate the verdict under Jones v. Illinois Central, arguing waiver due to failure to move for a mistrial before deliberations; the district court denied.
- The Sixth Circuit granted interlocutory review on whether Jones’s waiver applies to Rule 59 motions; it held that Jones does not extend to Rule 59, and affirmed the district court’s denial of reinstatement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jones waives Rule 59 relief | Park West argues Jones extends to Rule 59 motions. | GFAR/Franks/Phillips argue waiver applies to Rule 59. | Jones does not extend to Rule 59 motions. |
| Scope of Rule 59 versus Rule 60 for relief | Rule 59 provides broader relief for jury trial injustices. | Rule 60 contours limit relief and imply finality concerns. | Rule 59 relief is distinct and not controlled by Rule 60 waiver logic. |
| Public policy and discretion to grant new trial | Courts should intervene to prevent miscarriage of justice even without a mistrial. | Waiver should bar post-trial relief when misconduct was known before deliberations. | Court may grant Rule 59 relief where injustice is likely, not foreclosed by waiver. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 617 F.3d 843 (6th Cir.2010) (waiver of Rule 60 relief; limits on relief for trial misconduct)
- City of Cleveland v. Peter Kiewit Sons’ Co., 624 F.2d 749 (6th Cir.1980) (pervasive misconduct warrants new trial; curative instructions insufficient)
- Morton Butler Timber Co. v. United States, 91 F.2d 884 (6th Cir.1937) (pre-Rule 60 waiver notion; noted possible mistrial waiver)
- Carter v. Tennessee, 18 F.2d 850 (6th Cir.1927) (criminal context; failure to request mistrial can waive new-trial relief)
- Clark v. Chrysler Corp. (Clark II), 436 F.3d 594 (6th Cir.2006) (no objection rule for closing argument; substantial misconduct may warrant relief)
- Clark v. Chrysler Corp. (Clark I), 310 F.3d 461 (6th Cir.2002) (precedent shaping improper-closing-argument relief)