Sara Lesende v. Arnold Borrero
752 F.3d 324
| 3rd Cir. | 2014Background
- Lesende and husband sued City of Newark and Officer Borrero under §1983 for excessive force, false arrest/imprisonment, and malicious prosecution; husband asserted loss of consortium.
- First trial (June 2011) returned verdicts: Borrero liable on three §1983 claims; City liable under Monell; compensatory damages $2,700,000 to Lesende, $75,000 to husband; punitive damages $850,000 against Borrero.
- City moved for new trial or remittitur; district court remitted Lesende’s compensatory damages to $750,000 but allowed remittitur choice; Lesende chose a second trial on damages only.
- Second trial (Sept. 2012) awarded Lesende $4,000,000 in compensatory damages; City moved for remittitur but not a new liability trial; district court vacated second verdict and reinstated the first verdict in full.
- Appeals followed; district court’s final order vacating second verdict and reinstating first verdict became the central issue on appeal.
- Court ultimately vacated the district court’s final order and remanded to resolve the City’s remittitur motion on the second verdict; issues included waiver, Rule 59(d) jurisdiction, and whether apportionment instructions were required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the City’s sufficiency-of-evidence challenge preserved? | Lesende | City | Waived; City failed to preserve via Rule 50(a) or timely post-trial challenge |
| Should the district court have ordered a new trial on liability? | Lesende | City | Waived; district court lacked proper Rule 59(d) basis to sua sponte reconsider liability |
| Did the lack of apportionment instruction require reversal or plain error review? | Lesende | City | Not plain error; Monell finding showed City’s liability separate from Borrero; no reversible error |
| Did invited-error doctrine and district court's vacatur of the second verdict affect appellate review? | Lesende | City | Equity and invited-error concerns; court declined to grant relief due to invited-error dynamics and lack of clean posture |
| Did Rule 59(d) jurisdiction bar sua sponte consideration of liability remittitur? | Lesende | City | Rule 59(d) jurisdiction not satisfied; district court lacked power to sua sponte revisit liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Webb v. City of Phila., 562 F.3d 256 (3d Cir. 2009) (waiver when failure to raise issue at district court level)
- Huber v. Taylor, 469 F.3d 67 (3d Cir. 2006) (general waiver principles for appellate review)
- Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1976) (requirement that issues be raised below to be preserved on appeal)
- Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394 (U.S. 2006) (waiver and ordinary rules for post-trial motions in federal court)
- Cortez v. Trans Union, LLC, 617 F.3d 688 (3d Cir. 2010) (Rule 59(d) sua sponte actions and jurisdictional constraints)
- Demeretz v. Daniels Motor Freight, Inc., 307 F.2d 469 (5th Cir. 1962) (early Rule 59(d) time considerations on sua sponte remand)
- Franklin Prescriptions, Inc. v. N.Y. Times Co., 424 F.3d 336 (3d Cir. 2005) (plain-error review standard for trial-related objections)
- Collins v. Alco Parking Corp., 448 F.3d 652 (3d Cir. 2006) (standard for evaluating jury instruction objections)
- United States v. Maury, 695 F.3d 227 (3d Cir. 2012) (invited-error considerations in appellate review)
- Pepper v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 1229 (S. Ct. 2011) (law-of-the-case implications in appellate review)
- In re Pharmac Benefit Management Antitrust Litig., 582 F.3d 432 (3d Cir. 2009) (law-of-the-case and reconsideration principles)
- Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1988) (controlling authority on reconsideration and appellate review)