Aktas v. JMC Development Co.

563 F. App'x 79

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
• Decided: April 23, 2014
• Docket: 13-534(L), 13-1722(Con)
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiffs-appellants Necdet and Lisa Aktas appeal from the District Court’s judgment and order, entered January 18, 2013, denying their post-trial motions following a jury trial. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the procedural history of the case, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.

The first issue on appeal is whether the District Court properly denied plaintiffs’ Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law against defendant JMC Development, Co., Inc. (“JMC”). “A post-trial Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law is properly made only if a Rule 50(a) motion for judgment as a matter of law has been made before submission of the case to the jury.” Bracey v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Bridgeport, 368 F.3d 108, 117 (2d Cir.2004) (emphasis supplied). We have further held with regard to Rule 50(b) that, “[tjhough a procedural requirement, it may not be waived by the parties or excused by the district court.” Id. Because plaintiffs did not adequately make a Rule 50(a)(2) motion before the case was submitted to the jury, the Court did not err in denying Rule 50 relief.

Plaintiffs argue next that the Court erred in sanctioning them for spoliation of evidence in the form of the “adverse inference” charge. We review a district court’s decision on a motion for discovery sanctions for abuse of discretion. Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Fin. Corp., 306 F.3d 99, 107 (2d Cir.2002). After careful review, we conclude that this sanction was not erroneous in light of ample evidence that plaintiffs destroyed or altered JMC’s construction work, while excluding JMC from the property. As a result of this destruction, which may be understood as a failure to mitigate damages, we also reject plaintiffs’ contention that the comparative negligence charge was improper. See Resolution Trust Corp. v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 93 F.Supp.2d 300, 310 (W.D.N.Y.2000) (“The duty to mitigate damages, of course, is implicit within the comparative negligence framework.”).

Plaintiffs also object to the description of “material breach” in the jury instructions as “a failure to do something that is fundamental to the contract.” J.App. 72. Where a party objected to a proposed instruction, we will vacate the jury’s verdict if the error was prejudicial in light of the charge as a whole. Jacques v. DiMarzio, Inc., 386 F.3d 192, 200 (2d Cir.2004). Where a party failed to object to a jury instruction, we will only vacate a verdict if the error was fundamental, Jarvis v. Ford Motor Co., 283 F.3d 33, 62 (2d Cir.2002), that is, if the error was “so serious and flagrant that it goes to the very integrity of the trial,” SCS Commc’ns, Inc. v. Herrick Co., 360 F.3d 329, 343 (2d Cir.2004). It appears that plaintiffs’ counsel waived this argument when, after initially objecting to the charge, he stated, “I think the later language is correct, that [the breach] must ... touch on the fundamental purpose of the contract. That’s ... my position, your Honor.” J.App. 332. In any event, we conclude that, read as a whole, the charge was not so prejudicial that “[t]he jury might well have reached a different result had [an] appropriate instruction[ ] been given.” Holzapfel v. Town of Newburgh, 145 F.3d 516, 525 (2d Cir.1998).

Plaintiffs’ final challenge on appeal is that the $3,500 damages award against defendant Stephen Jung for breach of contract must be set aside because it cannot be a reasonable estimate of the agreed-upon measure of damages, namely, the cost of repair. Yet when considered in conjunction with the $50,000 damages award for plaintiffs’ negligence claim against Jung, which employed a similar measure of damages, the total amount of damages awarded to plaintiffs was consistent with the parties’ chosen instructions.

CONCLUSION

We have considered all of plaintiffs’ arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the January 18, 2013 judgment of the District Court.