Case Information
*1 15-1425-сv Conte v. Emmons, et al UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York on the 22 nd day of April, two thousand sixteen.
Present: ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
Circuit Judges . _____________________________________________________ ANTHONY CONTE,
Plaintiff-Appellee , v. 15-1425-cv BOB EMMONS, Individually and as Assistant District Attorney
of Nassau County, New York, WILLIAM WALLACE, Individually and as Assistant District Attorney of Nassau County, New York,
MIKE FALZARNO, Individually and as Special Investigator for
thе Office of the District Attorney of Nassau County, New York,
Defendants-Appellants . [1] _____________________________________________________ Appeаring for Appellants: Eliza Mae Scheibel, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker
LLP (Robert A. Spolzino, on the brief ), White Plains, NY Appearing for Appellee: Michael H. Zhu, New York, NY.
*2 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District оf New York (Bianco, J. ).
ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the order of said District Court be and it hereby is VACATED and REMANDED
Robert Emmons, William Wallace, and Michael Falzarno appeal from the April 2, 2015 order of the United Stаtes District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Bianco, J. ) denying their renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on Anthony Conte’s claim for tortious interference with contract. We assume thе parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and sрecification of issues for review.
“Where a mandate limits the issues open for consideration on remand, a district court
ordinarily cannot consider additional issues.”
Puricelli v. Argentina
,
The defendants argue that we can affirm the district court's decision because Conte did not prove sufficient facts to allow the jury to find any of the elements of a tortious-interference-of- contract claim and the defendants are immune from suit. However, the defendants did not specificаlly articulate these grounds for reversal in their Rule 50(a) motion. . . . . A mоvant, therefore, may not raise a ground in its renewed motion fоr judgment as a matter of law if he failed to raise that speсific ground earlier. We decline to address these issues for the first time on appeal and therefore vacate thе judgment as a matter of law as to these claims.
Conte v. County of Nassau
,
On remand, the district court fоund that the mandate limited it to considering only Conte’s motion for a new trial on damages. This was error, although the district court’s confusion is understandable given the drafting and arguable resulting ambiguity of our summаry order. In directing the district court to “resolve” the tortious interference with contract claim, it was this Court’s intention that the district court consider, in the first instance, all arguments related to that claim other than the statute of limitations claim. We thus remand again to give the district court an opportunity to do so.
Accordingly, the order of the district court hereby is VACATED and REMANDED.
Each side to bear its own costs.
FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
Notes
[1] The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption as above