Free Order on Motion to Amend/Correct - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case 2:03-cv-01415-ROS Document 220 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, an) ) Illinois corporation, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) Jerry Simms, a single man,

No. 03-1415-PHX-ROS ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company's Motion to Amend or Correct the Clerk's Judgment. (Doc. 206) For the following reasons, the motion will be denied. Defendant brought its motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). "Rule 59(e) amendments are appropriate if the district court '(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.'" Dixon v. Wallowa County, 336 F.3d 1013, 1022 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993)). Defendant believes that the jury's verdict was "manifestly unjust" and asks the Court to reduce the amount of bad faith damages awarded from $100,000 to $10,000.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Defendant's argument for reducing the amount of bad faith damages is based almost exclusively on the relatively short time that the jury deliberated after their first incorrect verdict was returned. The Court must presume, however, "that citizen jurors will properly perform the duties entrusted them and will not construe resubmission as an invitation to subvert the law and contort findings of fact in favor of a desired result." Duk v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc., 320 F.3d 1052, 1058 (9th Cir. 2003). In CVD, Inc. v. Raytheon Co., 769 F.2d 842, 859 (1st Cir. 1985), the jury returned an award of damages "equal to all legal fees and court costs incurred in connection with this suit." The trial court "indicated that this answer was not acceptable, and that the jury must reconsider and return with a proper reply." Id. In affirming the trial court's action, the appellate court noted "[i]t is well-established that the court should ask a jury to correct its verdict when the jury has failed to follow the court's instructions in returning a verdict." Id. In this case, the initial verdict contained an inappropriate award of attorneys' fees. After resubmission, the jury returned a legally correct verdict. It would be improper for the Court to delve into the jury deliberations or determine that the amount of time spent deliberating invalidates the award of damages.1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Amend or Correct the Clerk's Judgment (Doc. 206) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Strike (Doc. 214) is DENIED. DATED this 16th day of October, 2006.

State Farm's citation to cases involving remittitur are not relevant as there is no indication that the amount ultimately awarded in bad faith damages was "against the weight of the evidence." Vigilant Ins. v. Sunbeam Corp., 231 F.R.D. 582, 595 (D. Ariz. 2005) ("Court may grant a motion for a remittitur if the jury award was against the weight of the evidence."). -2Case 2:03-cv-01415-ROS Document 220 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 2 of 2

1