Robertson v. Cartinhour

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

WADE ROBERTSON, )

)

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 09-1642 (ESH)

)

WILLIAM C. CARTINHOUR, Jr. )

)

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff. )

)

ORDER

This case was tried to a jury over six days in February, 2011. After a single day of deliberations, the jury entered a judgment in favor of Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff William C. Cartinhour, Jr. on February 18, finding Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Wade Robertson liable for breach of fiduciary duty as a business partner and lawyer and for legal malpractice. (Dkt. No. 165.) The jury awarded Cartinhour $3.5 million in compensatory damages and $3.5 million in punitive damages. On March 25, Robertson filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b), asking the court to vacate the jury’s verdict and to enter judgment in his favor. (Dkt. No. 172.)

The Court has considered Robertson’s motion and has examined the law and evidence he cites as support for his position. Robertson’s legal and factual arguments – specifically, those regarding the application of the statute of limitations, the validity of the Release Agreement, his status as Cartinhour’s attorney, and the eligibility of Cartinhour for compensatory or punitive damages – were thoroughly addressed in pretrial motions or at trial. There was more than ample

2

evidence to support the jury’s findings on each issue, and Robertson has given the Court no reason to disturb those findings. Because Robertson “raise[s] nothing new with respect to these issues” and seeks merely to relitigate his case, the Court will not revisit its prior rulings. Godfrey v. Iverson, 503 F. Supp. 2d 363, 366 (D.D.C. 2007).

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that Robertson’s motion for judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ.

P. 50(b) is DENIED.

/s/

ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE

United States District Judge

DATE: March 28, 2011