White Communications v. Synergies3 Tec Services, 4 F.4th 606

White Communications (satellite installer) entered an assumption agreement with Synergies: Synergies paid $400,000 and agreed to pay 4.5% of future gross revenues indefinitely.
After subsequent purchases and a merger, an Operating Agreement made Jeffery White a 29% member of Synergies and entitled him to 4.5% of Synergies’s gross revenues; members could remove a member “for cause” by vote of the other four members.
Following a customer complaint that White allegedly sent an explicit text (“I wanna f— you”), AT&T contacted Synergies and sought to limit White’s access to customer information. White denied sending the explicit message, though a copy of the message from his phone was introduced at trial.
The other Synergies members voted to remove White, stopping his ownership interest and the 4.5% payments. White and White Communications sued for breaches of the assumption agreement, Operating Agreement, and implied contract.
At trial the jury found for Synergies on most claims (including breach of the Operating Agreement) but found for White Communications on a breach of implied contract claim and awarded $391,680. Post-trial motions (JMOL and new trial) were denied.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed: (1) denial of JMOL on whether removal was for cause, (2) admission of certain prior-bad-acts and hearsay/e-mail evidence, and (3) denial of new-trial motions including challenge to the damages award.

Issue	White's Argument	Synergies' Argument	Held
JMOL — Was there legally sufficient evidence that White was removed "for cause"?	Insufficient evidence that the text caused irreparable economic or reputational harm to Synergies.	AT&T’s intervention, the text evidence, loss of territories, and legal fees showed reputational/economic harm and risk to the AT&T contract.	Affirmed denial of JMOL — a reasonable jury could find for-cause removal.
Admissibility of prior bad acts under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)	Prior acts were impermissible character evidence and unduly prejudicial.	Prior-acts evidence was admissible to prove identity/intent/absence of mistake because White denied sending the message.	Admission not an abuse of discretion; probative for non-character purposes.
Hearsay — admission of AT&T e-mail chains and testimony about AT&T conversations	E‑mails and testimony contained double hearsay and lacked foundation/prejudicial.	Exhibits and testimony were offered to show their effect on Synergies’ decision-makers (non-hearsay); outer e-mail fit business-records exception.	Admissible for effect on listeners; admission not reversible error.
Motions for new trial — sufficiency of evidence and damages award	New trial warranted: insufficient evidence of cause; damages award was inadequate vs. asserted expectation (~$9M).	Evidence supported verdict; damages allocation is jury province and award not excessive.	Denial of new trials affirmed; damages verdict stands.

Milhauser v. Minco Prods., Inc., 701 F.3d 268 (8th Cir. 2012) (JMOL standard reviewed de novo)
Duban v. Waverly Sales Co., 760 F.3d 832 (8th Cir. 2014) (view evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
Washington v. Denney, 900 F.3d 549 (8th Cir. 2018) (jury-verdict evidence standard)
Batiste-Davis v. Lincare, Inc., 526 F.3d 377 (8th Cir. 2008) (standards for admitting other-acts evidence under Rule 404(b))
United States v. Beckman, 787 F.3d 466 (8th Cir. 2015) (out-of-court statement admissible to show effect on listener)
United States v. Malik, 345 F.3d 999 (8th Cir. 2003) (same: non-hearsay when offered for effect on listener)
Hallmark Cards, Inc. v. Murley, 703 F.3d 456 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard for reviewing denial of a new trial)
Schooley v. Orkin Extermination Co., 502 F.3d 759 (8th Cir. 2007) (jury’s role in awarding damages)
Niemiec v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 449 F.3d 854 (8th Cir. 2006) (when to disturb jury damages verdict)