Rocky Dietz v. Hillary Bouldin, 794 F.3d 1093

Dietz sued Bouldin for negligence in Montana state court, later removed to federal court, with stipulated past damages of $10,136.
Only issue at trial was future damages; Dietz argued for more extensive care and treatment, while Bouldin contested relatedness and extent of expenses.
During closing, Bouldin pressed the stipulation and suggested an award between $10,000 and $20,000 depending on relief and pain level.
After deliberations, a juror asked about the $10,136; the court deemed it not germane and did not instruct minimum damages, and the jury returned a $0 verdict for Dietz.
The court, moments after dismissal, recalled the jurors, asked about outside influences, and ordered a new verdict consistent with the stipulation; Dietz moved for mistrial.
The second verdict awarded Dietz $15,000; the district court’s recall was challenged on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether recalling a discharged jury is permissible	Recall was inappropriate after dismissal.	Recall permissible under totality-of-circumstances to correct verdict.	Recall allowed under totality-of-circumstances analysis.
What standard governs review of the district court’s recall decision	Review de novo as a void judgment due to due process concerns.	Abuse of discretion governs mistrial-related rulings; recall is reviewed accordingly.	Totality-of-circumstances standard governs recall; abuse/merit review applies to mistrial context but not rigid de novo.
Whether jurors were exposed to prejudicial outside influence during brief dismissal	Jurors likely exposed; recall tainted by outside contact.	Record supports no outside influence during the brief dismissal.	Record supports no prejudicial outside influence; recall not an abuse of discretion.
What inquiry is required to justify recall	Individualized questioning is always required.	Group questioning may suffice when appropriate and effective.	Totality-of-circumstances inquiry is appropriate; individualized inquiry preferred but not mandatory.

Summers v. United States, 11 F.2d 583 (4th Cir.1926) (jurors may remain under court control before dispersal to be recalled)
Figueroa, 683 F.3d 69 (3d Cir.2012) (pivotal inquiry is whether jurors became susceptible to outside influences)
Rojas, 617 F.3d 669 (2d Cir.2010) (recall after brief dismissal to correct verdict; no outside factors found)
Marinari, 32 F.3d 1209 (7th Cir.1994) (jurors recalled when still under control; polling allowed where not dispersed)
Wagner v. Jones, 758 F.3d 1030 (8th Cir.2014) (rigid bright-line rule prohibiting recall after dispersal; discussed as comparison)
Duk v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc., 320 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir.2003) (recall to correct mistakes conserves resources; context of recall)
E.F. Hutton & Co. v. Arnebergh, 775 F.2d 1061 (9th Cir.1985) (recall permitted where parties stipulated procedure)
Symington, 195 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir.1999) (district court's investigative power to evaluate jury deliberations)
Vartanian, 476 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir.2007) (trial courts best positioned to evaluate jury deliberations; discretion in approach)
Beard, 161 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir.1998) (adversarial system; district courts evaluate evidence from parties)