Robertson v. Cartinhour
This text of Robertson v. Cartinhour (Robertson v. Cartinhour) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
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 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
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Robertson v. Cartinhour, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robertson-v-cartinhour-dcd-2011.