## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ay17,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT

SE L R A H C , a Li m i t ed Par t ner s hi p,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. TER RY BU RR U SS,

D efe ndant - A ppel l ee, and GERALD WA YNE BAI LE Y; EARP E L E C T R IC , IN C .,

D e fe n d a n t s - T h i r d - P a r t yP l ai nti ffs-A pp el l ees, v. C H A R L E S R O Y E , I n d i v i d u a l l y,

T h ird -P a rty -D e fe n d a n t. SE L R A H C , a Li m i t ed Par t ner s hi p,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. TER RY BU RR U SS,

D e fe n d a n t, N o. 04- 7116 ( D . C . N o . 0 2 - C V - 2 2 1 - W) (E .D . O k la .)

N o. 05- 7116 ( D . C . N o . 0 2 - C V - 2 2 1 - W) (E .D . O k la .)A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det er m i ned * unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det er m i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is n o t b in d in g p re c e d e n t ex c e p t u n d e r th e d o c trin e s o f law o f th e c a se , res ju d ica ta and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue c o n s is te n t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . -2- and GERALD WA YNE BAI LE Y; EARP E L E C T R IC , IN C .,

D e fe n d a n t s - T h i r d - P a r t yP l ai nti ffs-A pp el l ants ,

v. C H A R L E S R O Y E , I n d i v i d u a l l y,

T h i r d - P a r t yD efe ndant - A ppel l ee.

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e T AC HA , C hi ef J udge, O’ BRI EN , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. T h e se c a se s a rise o u t o f a n o ra l co n tra c t fo r th e c o n stru c tio n o f a m o tel in St i gl er , O kl ahoma. I n M ar ch of 2001, G er al d W ayne B ai l eyagr eed t o cons t ruct t he mot el forSel r ahc, a l i m i t ed part ner s hi p w i t h C har l es R oy e as i t s m anagi ng par t ner , att he cos tof cons t ruct i on pl us M r . B ai l ey ’ s t en per centfee . M r . B ai l eyE arp E l ectr i c’ s open ac countcl ai m s w er e aba ndoned att r i al and not 1 s u b m i t t e d t o t h e j u r y. -3- su b co n tr ac ted w ith T erryB u rruss to p rov ide a rch it ec tural serv ices a n d w ith E arp E le c tr ic , In c ., to p ro v id e e le c tr ic a l s e rv ic e s . I n A u g u s to f

2 0 0 1 , t h e p a r t i e s ’ r e l a t i o n s h i p d e t e r i o r a t e d a f t e rM r . R o ye r efus ed t o payi n ful l a bi l l pr es ent ed byM r . B ai l ey . M r . B ai l eyeventual l yl eft t he w or k s i t e on the advi ce of hi s at t or neyand the mot el w as compl et ed w i t hout th e c o n tin u e d p a rt ic ip a tio n o f M r. B a ile y , M r. B u rr u s s , a n d E a rp E le c tr ic . Sel r ahc s ued M r . B ai l ey , M r . B ur rus s , and Earp E l ectr i c ( t he “de fenda nt s ”) i n O kl ahoma st at e courtcl ai m i ng negl i gence and br eac h of contr act . A ft ert he cas e w as r emoved t o fede r al di s t r i ctcour tbeca us e of di ver s i t yof ci t i zens hi p, M r . B a i l e y a n d E a rp E l e c t r i c b r o u g h tc l a i m s a g a i n s tS e l r a h c a n d M r . R o ye i ndi vi dual l yforbr eac h of contr actand open a ccount . A j ur yfound fort he d efen d an ts on S elrah c’s c lai m s. T h e juryalso fo u n d fo r M r. B ail eyan d E arp E l ectr i c on thei rbr eac h- of- contr actcl ai m s and forM r . B ai l eyon hi s open ac count cl ai m s. 1 T he d i stri ctcou rtden i ed S el rahc and M r. R oy e’s m oti on s for j ud gm ent as a m at t erof l aw and fora new t r i al w i t h one exc ept i on: t he courthel d t hat M r. B a ileya n d E a rp E lec tric h a d n o t p ro v e n a c o n tra c tu a l re latio n sh ip w ith M r . R oy e i n hi s i ndi vi dual capa ci t yand vac at ed the j udgm ent s agai ns thi m . T he-4-

cour taw ar ded att or ney s ’ fee s t o M r . B ai l ey , M r . B ur rus s , and Earp E l ectr i c, and al s o t o M r . R oy e. I n appea l num ber04- 7116, Sel r ahc a ppeal s fr om t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deni al of i t s m ot i ons forj udgm entas a mat t erof l aw and fora new t r i al , and the di s t r i ct co u rt ’s aw ard o f a tt o rne y s’ fe es to M r. B ail ey , M r. B u rruss, an d E arp E lectri c. In appea l num ber05- 7116, M r . B ai l eyand Earp E l ectr i c appe al fr om t he aw ar d of a tto rn e y s ’ fe e s to M r. R o y e . 04- 7116 S e lra h c a rg u e s o n a p p e a l th a t (1 ) th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in n o t g ra n tin g it j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw as t o al l cl ai m s ; ( 2) t he di s t r i ctcour tcomm i t t ed num er ous r ever s i bl e err or s dur i ng t r i al ; ( 3) t he ver di ct s w er e exc es s i ve and i ndi cat ed “c onfus i on” and “ abus e of pow er ” on the partof the j ur y , A pl t . O peni ng B r. at 22 ; and (4) the att o rne y s’ fe es g ran ted to M r. B ail ey , M r. B u rruss, an d E arp E lectri c w ere im p rop er. 1. D eni al of J udgm entA s A M at t erof Law S elrah c a rgu es th at be ca u se th ere w as n o t a l eg all ysu ffici en t evid en ti ary bas i s fort he j ur yver di ct s on ei t heri t s cl ai m s ort he cl ai m s of M r . B ai l eyand E arp E l ect ri c, t he d i stri ctcou rterr ed in not grant i ng i t s m oti on s for j ud gm ent as a m a tter o f

law a n d fo r a n e w trial. W e r evi ew or der s deny i ng j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw de novo, appl y i ng t he s ame st andar d as t he di s t r i ctcour tand vi ew i ng a ll e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t fa v o ra b le to th e n o n -m o v in g p a rt y .-5-

T h e sta n d a rd fo r g ra n tin g ju d g m e n t as a m a tter o f law is h ig h : U n les s th e e v id e n c e so o v e rw h e lm in g lyfa v o rs th e m o v a n t as to p e rm it n o o th e r ra tio n a l co n c lu sio n , jud g m e n t as a m a tter o f law is im p ro p e r. Kais erv. B ow l en , 455 F. 3d 1197, 1206 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) ( ci t at i on and i nt ernal q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). S im ila rl y ,

W e r evi ew t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deni al of [a ] m ot i on fora new t r i al forabus e of di s cr et i on, vi ew i ng al l t he evi dence i n t he l i ght m os tfavor abl e t o t he pr evai l i ng par t y . A m ot i on fora new t r i al on t he gr ounds t hatt he j ur yver di cti s agai ns tt he w ei ghtof the evi dence nor m al l yi nvol ves a r evi ew of the fa ct s pr es ent ed att r i al , and thus i nvol ves t he di s cr et i on of the tr i al cour t . T hus , even i f w e do not n e c e ss a rilya g re e w ith th e ju ry ’s v e rd ict, it m u st b e u p h e ld u n les s it i s cl ear l y , deci dedl yoroverw hel m i ngl yagai ns tt he w ei ghtof the evi dence . Esc u e v . N. O k la . C o ll. , 450 F. 3d 1146, 1156- 57 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) ( ci t at i ons and in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). S e lra h c a rg u e s th a t th e e v id e n c e su p p o rtin g its cl ai m s w as so ove rw helm i ng t hat the co urterr ed in not grant i ng i t s m oti on s. a . S e l r a h c ’ s Ne g l i g e n c e a n d Br e a c h - o f- Co n t r a c tCl a i ms

“ A s a fe d e ra l co u rt sitting in d iv e rsity , o u r ro le is to a sc e rta in a n d a p p ly s t at e l aw t o r eac h t he r es ul tt he O kl ahoma Supre m e C our tw oul d r eac h i f fa ced wi t h t h e s a me q u e s t i o n . We r e v i e w de novo a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s det er m i nat i on of s t at e l aw . ” Shugar tv. C ent . R ur alE l ec. C oop. , 1 1 0 F . 3 d 1 5 0 1 , 1 5 0 4 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) . I n O k l a h o m a , “ [ a ] p a r t y s e e k i n g t o e s t a b l i s h n e g l i g e n c e m u s tp r o v e b y a pr eponder ance of evi dence t he exi s t ence of a dutyow ed byt he defendantt o t he p lain tiff to u se o rd in a ryc a re , a b re a c h o f th a t d u ty , an d a n inju ryp ro x im a tely-6-

caus ed byt he defendant ’ s br eac h of duty . ” C om er v. P ref erred R isk Mut. Ins. C o. , 991 P. 2d 1006, 1010 ( O kl a. 1999) . T o pr ove br eac h, Sel r ahc ha d t o pr ove t hata contr actexi s t ed betw een i tand M r . B ai l ey , M r . B ur rus s , and Earp E l ectr i c, t hat the d efen dan t s breached the con t ract , and t hat Sel rahc w as dam aged “as a di r ectr es ul tof [the] br eac h. ” See Young v. Thom as , 930 P. 2d 836, 839 (O k la. C iv. A p p . 1 9 9 6 ). T h e p a rties d o n o t d isp u te th a t th e m o tel w a s to b e b u iltin c o m p lian c e w ith th e re q u ire m e n ts o f

th e B e st W e ste rn h o tel c o m p a n ya n d th e a p p lica b le cons t ruct i on codes . N ordo t he part i es di s put e thatM r . B ur rus s nevers ubm i t t ed ar chi t ectur al pl ans t hatful l ym etB es tW es t ern’ s r equi r ement s , t hatcert ai n w i r i ng i n s t a l l e d b y E a rp E l e c t r i c v i o l a t e d t h e c i t y c o d e o f S t i g l e r , o rt h a tM r . R o ye eventual l yat t empt ed t o hi r e M r . B ai l ey ’ s s ubcontr act or s di r ect l y . T he part i es do d ispu te t h e re aso n b eh ind M r. R o y e’s ref u sal t o p ayan inv o ice su b m itted b yM r. B ai l eyi n A ugus tof 2001. Sel r ahc a r gued att r i al t hatM r . R oy e r efus ed t o payt he in v o ice u n til E a rp E lec tric r e in sta lled th e n o n -c o m p lian t w irin g ; th a t u p o n h is r efus al M r . B ai l ey , M r . B ur rus s , and Earp E l ectr i c aba ndoned the pr oj ect ; and that t he onl yr eas on M r . R oy e cont act ed the s ubcontr act or s w as beca us e M r . B ai l ey had aba ndoned the pr oj ectand M r . R oy e w as t r y i ng t o fi ni s h i t . Sel r ahc a r gues t hati tpr es ent ed overw hel m i ng evi dence s uppor t i ng t hes e cl ai m s and thati tw as t her efor e ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw t hatdefe ndant s w er e negl i gent a n d b re a c h e d th e c o n tr a c t. W e d is a g re e .C i t at i ons t o br i efs and appe ndi ces ar e t o t he br i efs and appe ndi ces of the 2 appea l t hati s bei ng di s cus s ed. -7- T he defendant s pr es ent ed evi dence t hatM r . R oy e thoughtt hatM r . B ai l ey w as notdoi ng enough w or k t o j us t i fyhi s t en- per centfee and thathe w as conce r ned thatSel r ahc w as bei ng over char ged. T heyi nt r oduced e vi dence t hat M r . R oy e r efus ed t o payal l of the A ugus t2001 i nvoi ce be caus e he ha d deci ded th a t h e w a s n o t g o in g to p a yfo r a n y th in g th a t h a d n o t b e e n a c tu a llyin sta lled in the m o tel . M r. B ail eytest ifi ed that “w h en it em s are stored o n the jo b sit e, th ey ’re ei t hers t or ed on the j ob s i t e i n a tr ai l erori n a bonded w ar ehous e fora comm er ci al cons t ruct i on pr oj ect . ” A pl t . A pp. , V ol . I I at 147. H e furt hert es t i fi ed thatunder 2 s t andar d i ndus t r ypr act i ce a payr eques ti s s ubm i t t ed once t he s ubcontr act or p ro v id e s p ro o f

th a t th e ite m s a re o n th e s ite o r i n th e b o n d e d w a re h o u s e . M r . B ai l eyt es t i fi ed thathe oppos ed M r . R oy e’ s deci s i on t o devi at e fr om t he sta n d a rd p ra c tice b e c a u se o n c e th e item s w e re in sta lled in th e p rojec t th e yc o u ld notl egal l ybe r emoved i f paym entw as notm ade a nd t he onl yopt i on r emai ni ng w o u ld b e to lien th e p ro p e rty . T h e d e fe n d a n ts p re se n ted e v id e n c e th a t in h is i ni t i al r efus al s t o payM r . R oy e made no m ent i on of the fa ul t yw i r i ng and poi nt ed t o t he fa ctt hatnotonl ydi d M r . R oy e r efus e t o payt he por t i ons of the i nvoi ce t hatw er e t o go t o E arp E l ectr i c and M r . B ai l ey , he al s o r efus ed t o paya por t i on t hatw as t o go t o St eve Thom as Pl um bi ng, a s ubcontr act ornoti nvol ved w i t h t he w i r i ng. T he defendant s al s o pr es ent ed evi dence t hatw hen M r . B ai l eyr es i s t ed the-8-

change i n paym entpr act i ce, M r . R oy e cont act ed the s ubcontr act or s , t ol d t hem t hat M r . B ai l eyw as no l ongert he contr act oron t he j ob, and tr i ed t o pr es s ur e the s ubcontr act or s i nt o contr act i ng di r ect l yw i t h Sel r ahc. C o n seq u en tl y , there w as a m p le ev iden ce p rese n ted f rom w h ich th e jury co u ld h av e d eterm ined that S elrah c w as th e b rea ch ing p arty . Itca n n o t th ere fo re be s ai d t hatt he “e vi dence s o overw hel m i ngl yfavor [ed] [Sel r ahc] as t o per m i tno o th e r r a tio n a l c o n c lu s io n ” th a n th a t th e ju ry v e rd ic ts w e re e rr o n e o u s . Kais er , 455 F. 3d at1206 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ar ks om i t t ed) . T he di s t r i ctcour tdi d not comm i terr orbyr efus i ng t o gr antSel r ahc’ s m ot i ons forj udgm entas a mat t erof l aw and for a new t ri al as t o it s negli gen ce and breach-of-contr actcl ai m s. b . M r . Ba i l e ya n d Ea rp El e c t r i c ’ s Cl a i ms Sel r ahc a l s o ar gues i tw as ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw on t he c laim s b ro u g h t ag a in st it. It s first a rg u m e n t is so m e w h a t co n f u sin g b e c a u se it c la im s th a t “ C C B fa ile d to e s ta b lis h th a t it h a d a n a g re e m e n t w ith S e lr a h c , a p re re q u isite to a c laim fo r b re a c h o f c o n tra c t.” A p lt. O p e n in g B r. at 1 2 . W h ile w e i nfert hat“C C B ” r efe r s t o C C B , C ons t ruct i on, I nc. , M r . B ai l ey ’ s cons t ruct i on c o m p a n y , s ee Supp. A pp. at2, t he cl ai m s i n ques t i on w er e br oughtbyM r . B ai l ey i n hi s i ndi vi dual capa ci t y . A s s um i ng t hatSel r ahc i nt ends t o compl ai n aboutt he j ur yver di ct s i n favorof M r . B ai l ey , w e ar e atl os s t o under s t and how Sel r ahc c an ar gue thatt her e w as no contr actual r el at i ons hi p betw een i t s el f and M r . B ai l ey-9-

w hen i tbroug ht i t s ow n b reach-of- con t ractcl ai m against M r . B ai l ey . T hi s poi nt i s deni ed. Sel r ahc ne xtar gues t hat“C C B pr es ent ed no evi dence s uppor t i ng hi s [s i c] c laim fo r o p e n a c c o u n t w ith S e lra h c [ ;]” ra th e r, “C C B ’s e v id e n c e w e n t o n lyto its cl ai m forbr eac h of contr act . ” A pl t . O peni ng B r . at13. A gai n as s um i ng t hat Sel r ahc i s r efe r r i ng t o t he open a ccountver di cti n favorof M r . B ai l ey , w e agr ee t hatt her e w as nots uffi ci entevi dence t o s uppor tt he j ur y ’ s ver di ct . I n O kl ahoma, “thr ee fact or s ar e r equi r ed t o es t abl i s h an open a ccount : ( 1) [a] n [a] ccountbas ed upon runni ng orconcurr entdeal i ngs ; ( 2) t hes e dea l i ngs have notbeen c l os ed, s et t l ed ors t at ed; ( 3) s om e t er m of the contr actr emai ns t o be s et t l ed betw een p a rt ie s , o r t h e a g re e m e n t c o n te m p la te s f u rt h e r t ra n s a c tio n s b e tw e e n th e p a rt ie s .” O f f i ce of G over nor - D ep’ tof

Indus
. D ev. v. D al t on , 560 P. 2d 971, 972 (O k la . 1 9 7 7 ). T he part i es contr act ed fort he cons t ruct i on of the mot el fort he cos tof c o n stru c tio n p lu s te n p e rc e n t. T h e fa c tu a l situ a tio n h e re is th e re fo re a n a lo g o u s to t hatfound i n Whi ts on v. Wether bee El ectr i c C o. , 4 1 6 P . 2 d 8 8 8 (O k la. 1 9 6 6 ). In Whi ts on , an e lec tric c o m p a n ysu e d to c o llec t o n a c o n tra c t th a t ca lled (1 ) fo r it to p rov ide th e e lectri ca l m aterial s an d serv ices n ec essa ryto “‘h o o k [] u p ’” a “mechani cal cut t er , ors hear , ” and ( 2) fori tt o be pai d fort he cos tof the m at er i al s and s er vi ces pl us “a [ cert ai n] per cent age of pr ofi t . ” Id . a t 8 8 9 -9 0 . O ne of the ques t i ons addr es s ed byt he O kl ahoma Supre m e C our tw as w hether-10-

s uch a s ui tw as one on open a ccount . T he courtquot ed w i t h appr oval var i ous defi ni t i ons of “ope n acc ount , ” i ncl udi ng: [A ] n open ac count[i s ] an ac count“w her e the part i es i nt end thatt he i ndi vi dual i t ems of the ac counts hal l notbe cons i der ed i ndepende nt l y , butas a cont i nuat i on of a r el at ed s er i es , and thatt he acc ounts hal l be keptopen and s ubj ectt o a s hi ft i ng bal ance as a d d iti o n a l re late d e n tries o f d e b its o r c re d its a re m a d e th e re to , u n til it s hal l s ui tt he conve ni ence of ei t herpar t yt o s et t l e and c l os e the a c c o u n t . . . .” Id . at891 ( quot i ng 1 A m . J ur . 2d A ccounts and A ccount i ng§ 3 ). T h e c o u rt h e ld t hatt he s ui ton t he amount s unpai d undert he contr actati s s ue w as nota s ui ton o p e n a c c o u n t. T he s ame r eas oni ng appl i es her e. W hi l e the part i es t o t hi s cos t - pl us c o n t r a c twe r e u n s u r e e x a c t l yh o w mu c h fi n a l l ywo u l d b e s p e n t , a l l o f t h e t e r ms w e re s e t b e c a u s e th e c o n tr a c t w o u ld e n d w h e n th e b u ild in g w a s c o m p le te d . C ons equent l y , t he di s t r i ctcour terr ed i n notgr ant i ng j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw on M r . B ai l ey ’ s open ac countcl ai m , and w e r ever s e the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s j udgm ent a s t o t h a tc l a i m. Sel r ahc a l s o ar gues t hati tw as ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw on E arp E lectri c’s c lai m s fo r bre ac h o f c o n tr ac t and o p en ac co u n t bec au se E arp E lectri c o ffere d n o ev iden ce to su p p o rtthes e c lai m s. It s p o int r eg ard ing E arp E lec tric’ s o p e n a c c o u n t cla im is d e n ied b e c a u se n o su c h c laim w a s p re se n ted to th e ju ry . A s to th e b re a c h -o f-c o n tra c t cla im , S e lra h c a rg u e s th a t th e o n ly evi dence of br eac h of contr actpr es ent ed byE arp E l ectr i c w as “Sel r ahc’ s r efus al-11-

t o payforel ectr i cal w i r i ng noti n conform ance w i t h l ocal code. ” A pl t . O peni ng B r . at11. T hi s poi nti s deni ed bec aus e, as di s cus s ed above , evi dence w as pr es ent ed fr om w hi ch the j ur ycoul d have found t hatSel r ahc’ s r efus al t o payw as notbas ed on the non- compl i antw i r i ng. 2. A l l eged Rever s i bl e Err or s D ur i ng T r i al Sel r ahc c l ai m s t hatt he di s t r i ctcour terr ed i n notgr ant i ng i t s m ot i on for n e w tr ia l o n th e b a s is o f s u b s ta n tia l p reju d ic ia l e rr o r t h a t o c c u rr e d a t tr ia l. I n par t i cul ar , Sel r ahc c l ai m s t he di s t r i ctcour tcomm i t t ed r ever s i bl e err orby ( a) i m pr oper l yadmi t t i ng hear s ayt es t i m onyr egar di ng comm ent s byt he St i gl er C i t yC l erk, (b) i m properl yadm i t t i ng dis cov erydep osi t i on t est i m on yfrom B est W estern em p loy ee s, (c) im p rop erlyex clud ing ev iden ce reg ard ing M r. B u rruss’s s t at e di s ci pl i narypr ocee di ngs , ( d) i m pr oper l yal l ow i ng pr ej udi ci al at t or ney m i s conduct , ( e) i m pr oper l ycomm ent i ng on t he evi dence i n fr ontof the j ur y , and ( f) gi vi ng i m pr operi ns t ruct i ons and ver di ctfor m s t o t he j ur y . A s not ed previ ou sl y , w e revi ew a dis t ri ctcou rt ’s den i al of a m oti on for new t ri al for abu se o f d is c re tio n . Es cue , 4 5 0 F .3 d a t 1 1 5 6 . a. H ea rsayT esti m o n yR eg ard ing C o m m en ts bythe S ti g ler C ityC lerk A t tri al, M r. B ail eyw as q u esti o n ed ab o u t a visith e a n d M r. E arp o f E arp E l ectr i c made t o L eA nn L as s i t er , t he C i t yC l er k forSt i gl er , O kl ahoma. W hen M r . B ai l eyi ni t i al l ybegan t o t es t i fyaboutcomm ent s M s . L as s i t erm ade r egar di ng t he ci t y ’ s el ectr i cal code, Sel r ahc’ s at t or neyobj ect ed t o t he t es t i m onyas bei ng-12-

hear s ayand the obj ect i on w as s us t ai ned. M r . B ai l eyl at erw as al l ow ed t o t es t i fy (o v e r S e lra h c ’s o bjec tio n ) th a t h e w a s to ld th a t th e c ityu se d th e N a tio n a l E lec tric C ode ( N E C ) , w hi ch di d notre q u ir e th e w ir in g a t is s u e to b e in s ta lle d in c o n d u it. F inally , M r. B ail eytest ifi ed ag ain, th is t im e u n d er c ross -ex am ination b yS elrah c’s a t t o r n e y , t h a tt h e c i t yt o l d h i m th a tt h e NE C w a s t h e o n l ya p p l i c a b l e c o d e . At t hatpoi nt , couns el forSel r ahc que s t i oned M r . B ai l eyext ens i vel yr egar di ng w ho fr om t he ci t yhad gi ven hi m t hi s i nfor m at i on, w hen i tw as gi ven, w hether M s. L a ss iter w a s g o in g to a p p e a r a s a w itn e ss , an d w h e th e r h e h a d talk e d to M s . L as s i t ers i nce s he had gi ven hi m t hati nfor m at i on ors i nce the l aw s ui tbegan. Sel r ahc a r gues on appea l t hatt he di s t r i ctcour ti m pr oper l yadmi t t ed h e a rsa y , w h ich “ is a sta tem e n t, oth e r th a n o n e m a d e b yth e d e c lar a n t w h ile t es t i fy i ng att he tr i al orhear i ng, offe r ed i n evi dence t o pr ove the trut h of the m att er a sserted . ” F ed . R . E v id. 80 1 (c). D efen d an ts argu e tha t M s. L assiter’s s ta te m e n ts a re a d m is s ib le u n d e r t h e s ta te o f m in d e x c e p tio n o f

th e h e a rs a yru le . See F e d . R . E v id . 8 0 3 (3 ). Sel r ahc’ s poi nti s deni ed. T her e i s no need t o cons i deranyof the var i ous hear s ayexce pt i ons beca us e M s . L as s i t er ’ s s t at ement w as nothear s ay . I tw as u n d isp u ted th a t th e S tig ler C ityC o d e re q u ire d th e w irin g in q u e stio n to b e in c o n d u it. T h e re fo re , M s. L a ss iter’ s s tate m e n t w a s n o t o ffe re d a s p ro o f o f th e tru th of w hats he s ai d–i . e. , t hatt he ci t ycode s i m pl yi ncorpor at ed the N E C ( w hi ch does notr equi r e s uch w i r i ng t o be i n condui t ) –buti ns t ead s ol el yas pr oof thats he made-13-

th e in c o rr e c t s ta te m e n t, a n d th a t M r. B a ile ya n d M r. E a rp re lie d o n th a t s ta te m e n t. See Fed. R . E vi d. 801 advi s or ycomm i t t ee’ s not e t o s ubdi vi s i on ( c) ( “I f the s i gni fi canc e of a n offe r ed s t at ement l i es s ol el yi n t he fa ctt hati tw as m ade, no i s s ue i s r ai s ed as t o t he trut h of anyt hi ng as s er t ed, and the s t at ement i s not h ea rsay . ”). b. D epos i t i on T es t i m onyfr om B es tW es t ern E m pl oy ees A tt r i al , t r ans cr i pt s of depos i t i on t es t i m onyfr om B es tW es t ern empl oy ees L o ri G o n za les an d M ark H o lstan d rep o rt s att ac h ed to the tr an scripts w ere a d m itt e d in to th e re c o rd , the tes tim o n yw a s re a d to th e ju rya n d th e e x h ib its di s pl ay ed. T he t es t i m onyconce r ned M s . G onzal es ’ s and M r . H ol s t ’ s act i ons regar ding a vis i tM r. H ols tm ade to t he m otel . T he ex hibi t s w ere “r epo rt s” p re p a re d b yM s . G o n z a le s a n d M r. H o ls t r e g a rd in g th e s itu a tio n w ith th e m o te l. P rio r to th e tes tim o n yb e in g re a d in to th e re c o rd , S e lra h c ’s c o u n se l sta ted h is o bjecti o n s, w h ich w ere d ir ec ted to the c o n tent o f M s. G o n za les’s an d M r. H o lst ’s re p o rts , s peci fi cal l yt hat( 1) M s . G onzal es ’ s t es t i m onybar el yr efe r ence d her rep o rtan d em ail s co n tai n ed in the rep o rtinclu d ed h ea rsaystat em en ts from thir d par t i es , and ( 2) M r . H ol s t ’ s r epor tand t es t i m onyal s o cont ai ned a s ubs t ant i al num berof hea r s ays t at ement s fr om t hi r d par t i es . Sel r ahc’ s couns el r eques t ed that t he co urtredactal l t hir d-partyhearsayst at em ents from t he repo rt s. O n ap p ea l, S elrah c c o m p lai n s tha t M s. G o n za les’s an d M r. H o lst ’s d e p o sitio n tes tim o n ies w e re irre lev a n t an d w e re th e m se lv e s h e a rsa ysta tem e n ts-14-

becau se “[n]ei t her w i t ness app eared att ri al , no r w as there anyshow i ng t hat these w i t nes s es w er e unava i l abl e. ” A pl t . O peni ng B r . at15. T hi s poi nti s deni ed b e c a u se n e ith e r o f

th e se o bjec tio n s w e re ra ise d a t trial. “I f [ a ] c o m p lain in g p a rty fa i l [ s ] t o ma k e a c o n t e mp o r a n e o u s o bj e c t i o n a tt r i a l ” a s t o e v i d e n c e t h a ti tc l a i ms w as i m pr oper l yadmi t t ed “w e r evi ew t he rul i ng undera pl ai n err ors t andar d. ” Nat ’ lE nvt l
. Ser v. C o. v. R onan E ng’g C o. , 2 5 6 F . 3 d 9 9 5 , 1 0 0 1 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ); s ee F e d . R . E v id . 1 0 3 (a ) a n d (d ). O n p lain e rro r re v iew “ w e w ill o n lyre v e rse in an exc ept i onal ci r cumst ance –one w her e the err orw as pat ent l ypl ai nl yerr oneous and pr ej udi ci al , and funda m ent al i nj us t i ce w oul d ot herw i s e occ ur . ” B ar berv. T. D . Wi l l i am s on, Inc. , 254 F. 3d 1223, 1227 ( 10t h C i r . 2001) ( ci t at i ons and i nt ernal quot at i on m ar ks om i t t ed) . T he admi s s i on of the depos i t i on t es t i m ony does notm eett hi s s t andar d. c. E vi dence R egar di ng M r . B ur rus s ’ s St at e D i s ci pl i naryPr ocee di ngs A tt r i al , Sel r ahc’ s couns el s oughtt o offe ri nt o evi dence a fi ndi ng of the O kl ahoma ar chi t ectur al boar d t hatM r . B urrus s had vi ol at ed O kl ahoma l aw by pr act i ci ng ar chi t ectur e i n t he s t at e w i t houtan O kl ahoma l i cens e. O utof hea r i ng o f th e ju ry , S e lra h c ’s c o u n se l ar g u e d th a t th e fin d in g s n e e d e d to b e a d m itt e d to s how a s t at e l aw vi ol at i on. D efe ndant s ’ couns el r ei t er at ed an obj ect i on pr evi ous l yr ai s ed i n a mot i on forl i m i ne, ar gui ng t hatt he fi ndi ng fr om t he dis ci pli naryproceed i ng w as overl yprej ud i ci al i n li gh tof the fact t hat M r. B urruss admi t t ed thathe vi ol at ed O kl ahoma l aw . T he courts us t ai ned the obj ect i on and-15-

excluded t he ev i den ce bu tagreed thatt he d ocu m ent coul d b e used if M r. B urruss deni ed vi ol at i ng t he l aw . Fol l ow i ng t he benc h confe r ence M r . B ur rus s admi t t ed t hathe had vi ol at ed O kl ahoma l aw bypr epar i ng and s ubm i t t i ng ar chi t ectur al pl ans w i t houta l i cens e. O n appea l , Sel r ahc a r gues t hatt he evi dence fr om t he ar chi t ectur e boar d w as “hi ghl ypr obat i ve” a nd t hatM r . B ur rus s ’ s “t es t i m ony , t hathe w as w or ki ng on an appl i cat i on w i t h t he s t at e ar chi t ectur al boar d, . . . coupl ed w i t h t he l ack of evi dence of s t at e s anct i ons [, ] al l ow ed B ai l eyand B ur rus [s ] t o t r i vi al i ze the mat t er as i f i tw er e nota br eac h of the part i es ’ contr actand di d notevi dence n e g lig e n c e .” A p lt. R e p ly B r. a t 8 .

“ A lth o u g h re lev a n t, ev id e n c e m a yb e e x c lu d e d if its p ro b a tiv e v a lu e is s ubs t ant i al l yout w ei ghed byt he dange rof unfa i rpr ej udi ce . . . . ” Fed. R . E vi d. 403. H er e, Sel r ahc’ s ar gum entw as t hatt he ar chi t ectur al boar d fi ndi ng w as p ro b a tiv e b e c a u se it sh o w e d a v io latio n o f sta te la w . A c tu a lly , itw a s m e re ly d u p li ca ti v e o f M r. B u rruss’s o w n test im o n ythat h e v iolated s tat e law . F u rth er, t he pr obat i ve val ue of the vi ol at i on of s t at e l aw w as compromi s ed byt he u n d isp u ted fa c t th a t S e lra h c w a s a w a re th a t M r. B u rru ss w a s n o t li c e n se d in O kl ahoma att he t i m e he s t ar t ed w or k. T he di s t r i ctcour tcomm i t t ed no abus e of di s cr et i on and Sel r ahc’ s poi nti s deni ed.-16-

d. Pr ej udi ci al A t t or neyM i s conduct A tt r i al , M r . R oy e t es t i fi ed t o addi t i onal funds expende d bySel r ahc on l i ght i ng fort he mot el fol l ow i ng t he depa r tur e of Earp E l ectr i c. C ouns el for defe ndant s cr os s - exami ned M r . R oy e r egar di ng a “di s cl ai m er ” fr om C eci l D on R ober t s on, t he el ectr i ci an w ho r epl ace d E arp E l ectr i c, i n w hi ch i tw as m ade c l ear th a t M r. R o b e rt s o n h a d in s ta lle d o n ly th e u p p e r p o rt io n o f th e p a rk in g lo t lig h ts . A ft er M r. R oy e t est i fi ed thathe d i d n ot r em em ber si gn i ng t he d i scl ai m er, defe nse c o u n se l w a s a llo w e d , o v e r o bjec tio n , to g iv e th e d o c u m e n t to M r. R o y e to “r efr es h hi s m emory . ” A pl t . A pp. , V ol . I V at566. A ft erexami ni ng t he document , M r . R oy e w as as ked a numberof ques t i ons aboutM r . R ober t s on and t he di s cl ai m er . M r . R oy e t es t i fi ed thathe di d notr eca l l evers eei ng t he di s cl ai m er and t hat the si gn ature on itw as hi s w i fe’s , no this . Sel r ahc s ubs equent l ym oved fora mi s t r i al , ar gui ng t hatt he exc hange ha d l e d t h e j u r yt o b e l i e v e t h a tRo y e ’ s wi fe h a d s i g n e d t h e d o c u me n ti n h i s n a me w hen s he had a ctual l ys i gned herow n name. D efe ns e couns el ar gued thathe had i n g o o d fa i t h t h o u g h tt h a tM r . R o ye h a d s i g n e d t h e d o c u m e n tb u tt h a tM r . R o ye h a d b e e n c le a r t h a t h is w ife h a d s ig n e d it a n d th a t s h e h a d s ig n e d h e r o w n n a m e . T he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed the mot i on fora mi s t r i al butgave the j ur ya l i m i t i ng i ns t ruct i on dr aft ed bySel r ahc’ s couns el i ns t ruct i ng t he j uryt hatt he di s cl ai m er w as nots i gned byC har l es R oy e.-17-

O n ap peal, S el rahc al l eges t hat a m i stri al shou l d h ave b een g rant ed b ecause d e fe n se c o u n se l “d e lib e ra telym isre p re se n ted , to th e C o u rt a n d th e Ju ry , in r epea t ed ques t i oni ng, t hatM r . R oy e had s i gned a doc um enthe di d nots i gn, for the p u rpo se o f m ak ing M r. R o y e a p p ea r as if h e w ere ly ing . ” A p lt . O p en ing B r. at18. “W e r evi ew t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deni al of a mot i on form i s t r i al forabus e of di s cr et i on. I n deci di ng w hethert he courtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on, w e as s um e that t he tr i al j ud ge is i n the bestpo si t i on t o d et erm i ne w hetheran inci den tw as so s er i ous as t o w arr anta mi s t r i al . ” R i os v. B igl er , 6 7 F . 3 d 1 5 4 3 , 1 5 5 0 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) (cit ati o n an d interna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). M r . R oy e w as i n no w aypr ej udi ced byt hi s excha nge. H e cl ear l yt es t i fi ed th a t th e sig n a tu re o n th e d isc laim e r w a s h is w ife ’s, n o e v id e n c e w a s p re se n ted to co n tr ad ictthat test im o n y , an d the ju ryw as th en instructed that M r. R o y e’s t es t i m onyw as corr ect . Sel r ahc’ s poi nti s deni ed. e. I m pr operD i s t r i ctC our tC om m ent s on E vi dence Sel r ahc a r gues t hatt he di s t r i ctcour ti m pr oper l ycomm ent ed on an a t t empt bySel r ahc’ s couns el t o i m peac h t es t i m onyof Ter r yB ur rus s . Sel r ahc for w ar ded th e fir s t s e t o f

a rc h ite c tu ra l p la n s s u b m itte d b yM r. B u rr u s s to B e s t W e s te rn . A ft erSel r ahc ha d r ece i ved M r . B ur rus s ’ s s econd s etof pl ans , i tr ece i ved a l et t er fr om B es tW es t ern ( t he “J ul y20t h l et t er ”) det ai l i ng t he def i ci enci es found i n t he fi r s ts et . A tt r i al , Sel r ahc’ s couns el as ked M r . B ur rus s i f the s econd s etof pl ans he had s ubm i t t ed had a l r eadyaddr es s ed the def i ci enci es B es tW es t ern l i s t ed i n t he-18-

Jul y20 t h lett er. M r. B urruss t est i fi ed thatt he seco nd setdid corr ectt ho se defi ci enci es and Sel r ahc’ s couns el i nt r oduced e ar l i erdepos i t i on t es t i m onyi n an e ffo rt to im p e a c h h is te s tim o n y . In th a t d e p o s itio n te s tim o n y , Selr ahc’s couns el sta ted : N o w , m yu n d e rsta n d in g f ro m w h a t y o u ’v e to ld m e is th a t E x h ib it N um ber 2 did no tcorr ectal l t he d efi ci encies i den t i fi ed b y[B est W e ste rn ], an d th is w a s a p re lim in a ryre v ise d p lan a n d th a t y o u d id no ti ntend t hat these ev er–this part i culardo cum ent r i gh there, j ust th is d o c u m e n t, th a t it b e s e n t to B e s t W e s te rn . A pl t . A pp. , V ol . I I at220. M r . B ur rus s t hen ans w er ed: “[A ] tt he t i m e I had s ent [th e se co n d set] up there , I w as n o t aw are o f th e Ju ly2 0 th lett er. I w as a w are t here had been a B estW est ern r epresent at i ve o n the si t e t hat had rel at i on t o these t hathad comm ent s aboutt he r oom s notbei ng l ar ge enough. ” Id . , V ol . I I at 220- 21. A ft ert hi s depos i t i on t es t i m onyw as r ead bySel r ahc’ s couns el , t he j udge s t at ed thathe w as nots ur e thati tactual l yi m peac hed M r . B ur rus s ’ s t r i al t e s t i m o n y a n d s u s t a i n e d a n o bj e c t i o n t o t h e u s e o f t h e t e s t i m o n y. T her e w as no pr ej udi ce he r e. Fol l ow i ng t he r eadi ng of the depos i t i on t est i m on y , M r. B urruss adm i t t edth a t th e se c o n d se t o f p lan s d id n o t co m p lete ly corr ectt he def

i ci enci es l i s t ed i n t he J ul y20t h l et t er . So even though t he j udge su sta in e d th e o bjec tio n to th e d e p o sitio n tes tim o n yS e lra h c su c c e e d e d in i m peac hi ng M r . B ur rus s ’ s pr evi ous t es t i m ony . Sel r ahc’ s poi ntof err ori s deni ed. f. I m pr operI ns t ruct i ons-19-

S elrah c c lai m s the d istri ct co u rterred in instruc ti n g the ju ryo n the th eo ry o f q u a n tu m m e ru it.

In a di versi t ycase, t he sub st ance o f a j uryi nst ruct i on i s a m a tter o f

sta te la w , b u t th e g ra n t o r d e n ial o f a ten d e re d in stru c tio n is governed byfede r al l aw . W e r evi ew de novo the ul t i m at e ques t i on o f w h e th e r t h e ju ry w a s p ro p e rl yin s tru c te d o n th e q u e s tio n o f la w . In so d o in g , w e e x a m in e th e in stru c tio n s a s a w h o le to d e ter m in e if th e ysu fficie n tlyc o v e r th e iss u e s in th e c a se a n d fo c u s o n th e fa c ts pr es ent ed byt he evi dence . Haber m an v. Har t

f or d Ins . G r oup , 443 F. 3d 1257, 1273 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) (cit ati o n s an d interna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). “W e re v iew the d istri ct co u rt ’s deci s i on t o gi ve a pa r t i cul arj ur yi ns t ruct i on foran abus e of di s cr et i on. T he i ns t ruct i ons ar e cons i der ed as a w hol e de novo t o det er m i ne w hethert hey acc ur at el yi nfor m ed the j ur yof the governi ng l aw . ” Mur phy O i lUSA , Inc. v. Wood , 4 3 8 F .3 d 1 0 0 8 , 1 0 1 9 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (c itatio n o m itt e d ). “R e v e rsa l is w arran ted w h en a d efici en t j u ryinstruction is prejud ici al. T h u s, w h ere a jury in stru c tio n is le g a llye rro n e o u s, w e m u st re v e rse if th e ju rym ig h t h a v e b a se d its ver di cton t he err oneous l ygi ven i ns t ruct i on. ” C ol em an v. B
- G Mai nt . M gm t . of C ol o. , Inc. , 108 F. 3d 1199, 1202 ( 10t h C i r . 1997) ( ci t at i on and i nt ernal quot at i on m ark s o m itted). A tt r i al , t he di s t r i ctcour ti ns t ruct ed the j ur yon t he theoryof quantum m erui ti n r egar d t o E arp E l ectr i c’ s cl ai m s . “[T] he comm on- l aw doctr i ne of quantum m erui t. . . i s founded on a L at i n phr as e meani ng, ‘ as m uch as he deserves, ’ and i n law has bee n d efi ned as a l egal act i on groun ded on a prom i se-20-

th a t th e d e fe n d a n t w o u ld p a yto th e p lain tiff fo r h is s e rv ice s a s m u c h a s h e sh o u ld des er ve. ” Mar t i n v. B uckm an , 883 P. 2d 185, 193- 94 ( O kl a. C i v. A pp. 1994) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ar ks om i t t ed) . Sel r ahc a r gues t hatE arp E l ectr i c coul d not re c o v e r u n d e r q u a n tu m m e ru it b e c a u s e o f th e e x is te n c e o f

a n e x p re s s c o n tr a c t. See Shum akerv. Haz en , 3 7 2 P . 2 d 8 7 3 , 8 7 5 (O k la. 1 9 6 2 ) (ag ree ing w ith co u n sel’s ar gum entt hat , as a gene r al pr opos i t i on of l aw , “[t ] her e ca nnotbe an e xpr es s and an i m pl i ed contr actfort he s ame t hi ng exi s t i ng att he s ame t i m e”) ( i nt ernal qu otat i on m arks om i t t ed). B ut as E arp E l ect ri c corr ect l ypo i nts ou t , no exp res s contr actexi s t ed betw een i tand Sel r ahc. A nd, even i f an e xpr es s contr actual rel at i on shi p w as fou nd t o ex i st : “W here a peti t i on declar es upo n an exp res s c o n tra c t b u t n e g a tiv e s f u ll p e rfo rm a n c e o f

it b e c a u se o f

d e fe n d a n t’s w ro n g f

u l ac t, a r ecove r yfordebtm aybe had upon a quantum m erui t . ” Id . (q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). T he di s t r i ctcour tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n i ns t ruct i ng t he j ur yon quantum m e ru it. Sel r ahc a l s o ar gues t hatt he di s t r i ctcour tcomm i t t ed r ever s i bl e err orby instructing the ju ryo n su b stan ti al pe rfo rm an ce reg ard ing M r. B ail ey ’s an d E arp E l ectr i c’ s br eac h- of- contr actcl ai m s . T he j ur yw as i ns t ruct ed that“[a ] par t yw ho h a s s u b sta n tiallyp e rfo rm e d a c o n tra c t is e n tit led to re c o v e r” a n d th a t d e fe n d a n ts s ubs t ant i al l yper for m ed i f “Sel r ahc r ece i ved s ubs t ant i al l yw hatt he contr act r e q u i r e d ; a n y o m i s s i o n s , d e v i a t i o n s o rd e fe c t s c a n b e c o r r e c t e d w i t h o u td i ffi c u l t y; and D efe ndant s act ed i n good fai t h i n i nt endi ng t o per for m t hei rpar tof the-21-

contr act . ” A pl t . A pp. , V ol . I at136. Sel r ahc a r gues t hatt he evi dence w as cl ear t hatnei t herM r . B ai l eynorE arp E l ectr i c had s ubs t ant i al l yper for m ed thei rdut i es u n d e r t h e c o n tr a c t. See Thomps on v. Uni t ed Stat es , 223 F. 3d 1206, 1210 ( 10t h C i r . 2000) ( “J ur yi ns t ruct i ons s houl d be gi ven onl yi f theyar e s uppor t ed by co m p eten t evid en ce . ”) (interna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). S in c e th e m o tel w a s n o t clo se to c o m p letio n a n d th e w irin g in q u e stio n d id notcompl yw i t h t he St i gl ercode w hen M r . B ai l eyand Earp E l ectr i c l eftt he j ob s i t e, w e agr ee thatt her e w as nots uffi ci entevi dence t o w arr antt he s ubs t ant i al p e rfo rm a n c e ju ry in s tru c tio n . H o w e v e r, t h e e rr o r c o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n p reju d ic ia l. M r . B ai l eyand Earp E l ectr i c’ s ar gum entt o t he j ur yw as nott hatt heyhad s ubs t ant i al l yper for m ed butt hatSel r ahc ha d dr i ven them off t he w or k s i t e af t er t r y i ng t o change how paym ent s w er e made. Sel r ahc’ s ar gum entw as t hatt he defe ndant s abandone d t he pr oj ectaft eri tr efus ed t o payforfaul t yw i r i ng. T he j ur yw as notonl yi ns t ruct ed on s ubs t ant i al per for m ance butal s o t hat“[a ] contr act i s br eac hed orbr oken, even i f the t i m e forper for m ance has notarr i ved, w hen one par t ynot i fi es t he otheroract s i n s uch a w ayt hati ti s cl eart hathe does noti nt end t o do w hatw as pr om i s ed i n t he contr act [, ] ” A pl t . A pp. , V ol . I at134; t hat“[a ] par t yi s r el i eved of

t he dutyt o per for m a contr acti f the otherpar t yt o t he contr act pr event ed hi m fr om per for m i ng, ” id . , V ol . I at135, and that“[e ] ven though a c o n tra c t m a yc a ll fo r a c o n d iti o n to b e sa tisfied b e fo re a p a rty ’s p e rfo rm a n c e is req u ir ed , in so m e c ase s the co n d it ion m ayb e e x cu sed so that the p arty ’sSel r ahc a l s o ar gues t hatt he j ur yi ns t ruct i on “err orw as fur t hercompounded 3 b ythe s u b m issi o n o f a v erd ictfo rm o n an o p en ac co u n t[] i n fa v o r of E arp E l ectr i c . . . aft ert he j udge’ s cl er k advi s ed thatt he ver di ctfor m w oul d be del et ed. ” A pl t . O peni ng B r . at22. N o s uch ver di ctfor m w as pr es ent ed t o t he j u r y. -22- per for m ance i s r equi r ed eve n t hough t he condi t i on has notbeen s at i s fi ed, ” id ., V ol . I at137. Si nce i ti s cl eart hatt he j ur ybel i eved the defendant s ’ ver s i on of event s , t her e w as no r eas on thati tw oul d have r el i ed on the more di ffi cul tfi ndi ng of s ubs t ant i al per for m ance i n r eac hi ng i t s ver di ct . T hi s poi nti s deni ed. 3 3. T he V er di ct s R efl ect ed I ncons i s t enci es O n T hei rFace a nd I ndi cat ed C onfus i on and A bus e of Pow er T h e ju ryfo u n d fo r M r. B a ileya n d a g a in st S e lra h c o n b o th h is b re a c h -o f-c o n tra c t cla im a n d h is o p e n a c c o u n t cla im , aw a rd in g $ 1 1 ,1 2 7 .0 0 to M r. B ai l eyon each c l ai m . T he jur yal so fou nd for E arp E l ect ri c and against S e lr a h c o n E a rp E le c tr ic ’s b re a c h -o f-c o n tr a c t c la im , a w a rd in g it $ 4 ,9 9 7 .0 0 . Sel r ahc a r gues t hatt he di s t r i ctcour terr ed i n notgr ant i ng i t s m ot i on fora new trial b e c a u se th e v e rd icts w e re in c o n sis ten t. S e lra h c d id n o t o bjec t to th e v e rd icts p ri o r t o th e d is c h a rg e o f th e ju ry. A fai l ur e t o obj ectt o gener al j ur yver di ct s on t he gr ound of i nco nsi st encybefo re the jur yi s di scharged co nst i tutes w ai ver, un l ess t he ver di cti s i ncons i s t enton i t s fac e s uch thatt he entr yof j udgm ent u p o n th e v e rd ict is p lain e rro r. P lain e rro r e x ists o n lyw h e n v e rd icts ar e i ncons i s t enton t hei rfac e.W e not e thatt he j ur yw as i ns t ruct ed thateven i f i tfound i n favorof Sel r ahc 4 o n b o th its b re a c h -o f-c o n tra c t cla im a n d its n e g lig e n c e c laim o n lya sin g le r ecove r yof damages coul d be aw ar ded. N o s i m i l ari ns t ruct i on, how ever , w as r eques t ed i n r egar d t o t he br eac h- of- contr actand open a ccountcl ai m s br oughtby (c o n tin u e d ...) -23- B ar t ee v . Mi chel i n N. A m . , Inc. , 374 F. 3d 906, 911 ( 10t h C i r . 2004) ( ci t at i on, i nt ernal quot at i on m ar ks , and footnot e ca l l num berom i t t ed) . Sel r ahc a r gues t hat t he ver di ct s w er e i ncons i s t enton t hei rfac e. W e di s agr ee. Sel r ahc’ s ar gum enti s t hatt he $11, 127. 00 ver di cti s i dent i cal t o t he amount t hatM r . B ai l eyt es t i fi ed w as t he cos tof ce r t ai n i t ems t hatw er e us ed on the pr oj ectforw hi ch he w as neverpai d, and that$4, 997. 00 i s i dent i cal t o t he amount of us abl e mat er i al t hatt he el ectr i ci an w ho r epl ace d E arp E l ectr i c found w hen he ent er ed the j ob s i t e. Sel r ahc a r gues t hat“[t ] he j ur yi s bel i eved t o have i nt ended one j udgm ent , i n t he amount of $11, 127. 00, i n favorof [M r . ] B ai l ey , and one j udgm ent , i n t he amountof $4, 997. 00, i n favorof Earp E l ectr i c” a nd t hatt he doubl e aw ar d of $11, 127. 00 ( t o M r . B ai l ey ) “s how s t he j ur yw as confus ed and the a w a rd is c o m p lete lyin c o n sis ten t w ith th e e v id e n c e a n d in stru c tio n s.” A p lt. O peni ng B r . at23. T hi s i s notfac i al i ncons i s t encyr equi r i ng a gr antof new t r i al des pi t e the fai l ur e t o obj ect . T he ver di ct s her e w er e al l agai ns tSel r ahc. T o t he ext entt hat Sel r ahc i s ar gui ng t hatt he evi dence di d nots uppor tt w o ver di ct s of $11, 127. 00, t hatar gum enti s m ooti n l i ghtof ourpr evi ous det er m i nat i on over tur ni ng t he open acc ount aw ar d. T o t he ext entt hatSel r ahc i s at t empt i ng t o ar gue thateven the 4( . . . cont i nued) 4 M r. B a ile y . -24- verdi ct s that i tbeli eved t he jur yi ntended w ere excessi ve, or t o repri se or r ai se fur t hercl ai m s r egar di ng t he s uffi ci encyof the evi dence as t o i t s l i abi l i t yon M r . B ai l eyand Earp E l ectr i c’ s br eac h- of- contr actcl ai m s ort he amount of the ver di ct s on t hos e cl ai m s , t hos e ar gum ent s ar e notpr oper l ypr es ent ed i n t hi s poi nt a n d a re w a iv e d . See G ar r et tv. Sel by C onnorMaddux & Janer , 425 F. 3d 836, 841 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (h o ld in g th a t “m e re c o n c lu so rya lleg a tio n s w ith n o c itatio n s to t he r ecor d oranyl egal author i t yfors uppor t ” cons t i tut ed i nadequa t e br i efi ng s uch th a t th e p o in ts o f

e rr o r w e re w a iv e d ). 4 . Im p rop er A tt o rne y s’ F ee s G ran ted to M r. B ail ey , M r. B u rruss, an d E arp E lec tric T he di s t r i ctcour taw ar ded att or ney s ’ fee s agai ns tSel r ahc a nd i n favorof M r. B u rr u s s , M r. B a ile y , a n d E a rp E le c tr ic in th e to ta l a m o u n t o f $ 9 6 ,9 3 8 .4 6 . S el rahc argues t hat M r. B ai l eyw as the o nlypart yenti t l ed to r ecov er at t orney s’ fee s and he w as onl yent i t l ed t o r ecove rfee s earned i n pur s ui ng hi s open ac count c l a i m. I n O kl ahoma, a pr evai l i ng par t ycannotr ecove rat t or ney s ’ fee s “i n t he abs ence of a s t atut e oran enfor cea bl e contr act . ” Sis ney v . Sm al l ey , 690 P. 2d 1 0 4 8 , 1 0 4 9 (O k la. 1 9 8 4 ). H ere , the a w ard to M r. B u rruss, M r. B ail ey , an d E arp E l ect ri c w as predi cat ed o n O kla. S t at . A nn . t i t . 12 , § 9 36 . T hat s t atute r eads:-25-

I n anyci vi l act i on t o r ecove rforl aborors er vi ces r ender ed, oron an o p e n a c c o u n t, a s tate m e n t o f a c c o u n t, ac c o u n t sta ted , n o te, b ill , negot i abl e i ns t rum ent , orcontr actr el at i ng t o t he pur chas e ors al e of goods , w ar es , orm er chandi s e, unl es s ot herw i s e pr ovi ded byl aw or th e c o n tra c t w h ich is th e su bjec t o f th e a c tio n , the p re v a ili n g p a rty sh a ll b e a llo w e d a re a so n a b le a tto rn e yfe e to b e se t b yth e c o u rt, t o be taxed an d co l l ect ed as co st s. T he O kl ahoma Supre m e C our thas hel d t hat“the mandat or ypr ovi s i ons of § 936 t hatt he pr evai l i ng par t yi n an ac t i on t o r ecove rforl aborand s er vi ces s hal l be al l ow ed a r eas onabl e att or neyfee ar e s t r i ct l yappl i ed. ” Kay v. Venez uelan Sun O i lC o. , 806 P. 2d 648, 650 ( O kl a. 1991) ( footnot e ca l l num berom i t t ed) . Sel r ahc ar gues t hatw hi l e M r . B ai l eys houl d have be en al l ow ed t o r ecove rat t or ney s ’ fee s on i t s open ac countcl ai m , “[t ] he O kl ahoma Supre m e C our tand the C our tof A ppeal s have made i tcl eart hat[§ 936] does notcoverdamages forbr eac h of contr act . ” A pl t . O peni ng B r . at25. Sel r ahc mi s appr ehends t he l aw . T he O kl ahoma Supre m e C our thas hel d:

I ti s t he under l y i ng natur e of the s ui ti t s el f w hi ch det er m i nes th e a p p lic a b ility o f

th e la b o r a n d s e rv ic e s p ro v is io n s o f s e c tio n 9 3 6 . I f the ac t i on i s br oughtforl aborand s er vi ces r ender ed, t he pr ovi s i ons of s ect i on 936 appl y . I f the natur e of the s ui ti s for damages ar i s i ng fr om t he br eac h of an a gr eementr el at i ng t o l abor a n d s e rv ic e s th e p ro v is io n s o f th is s e c tio n d o n o t n e c e s s a ri ly ap p ly. T he ques t i on i s w hethert he damages ar os e di r ect l yfr om t he rendi t i on of labor or s ervi ces, such as a fail ure t o p ayfor t ho se ser vices , or fr om an aspe ctcoll at eral l yrel at i ng t o labor and servi ces, s uch as l os s of pr ofi t s on a contr acti nvol vi ng t he r endi t i on of l abor and ser vices . B u r r o w s C o n s tr . C o . v . In d e p . S c h . D is t. No . 2 , 704 P. 2d 1136, 1138 ( O kl a. 1985) ( fo o t n o t e c a l l n u mb e r s o mi t t e d ) . Th e d i s tr i c tc o u r th e l d t h a tS e l r a h c ’ s c l a i ms-26-

agai ns tM r . B ur rus s “cl ear l yr el at ed t o damages ar i s i ng fr om ar chi t ectur al s er vi ces r ender ed. ” A pl t . A pp. , V ol . I at104. I tfur t herhel d t hatM r . B ai l eyw as ent i t l ed t o r ecove ron hi s open ac countcl ai m , as conce ded bySel r ahc, and that Sel r ahc’ s cl ai m s agai ns tE arp E l ectr i c and Earp E l ectr i c’ s br eac h- of- contr act count er - cl ai m agai ns tSel r ahc, “al l r el at e t o t he r endi t i on of l aborors er vi ces . ” Id . , V ol . I at105. W e di s agr ee thatSel r ahc’ s act i on w as one “t o r ecove rforl aborors er vi ces ren d ere d ” u n d er § 9 3 6 . U n d er B u r r o w s C o n s tr u c tio n C o . “ [ t]h e q u e stio n is w hethert he damages ar os e di r ect l yfr om t he r endi t i on of l aborors er vi ces , s uch as a fa i l ur e t o payfort hos e s er vi ces . ” 704 P. 2d at1138. H er e Sel r ahc di d not r enderanyl aborors er vi ces undert he contr act . I n R us s el lv. F l anagan , 544 P. 2d 5 1 0 (O k la. 1 9 7 5 ), th e O k lah o m a S u p re m e C o u rt e x a m in e d a n d p a rtially over tur ned Wa lls v . R u ss e ll , 519 P. 2d 936 ( O kl a. C i v. A pp. 1974) . I n Wa lls , a plum ber sued a lando w ner for m on eydu e on a plum bing con t ractand t o fo recl ose o n a m e c h a n ic s lie n . T h e la n d o w n e r t h e n s u e d th e p lu m b e r fo r b re a c h o f c o n tr a c t. B ot h par t i es s ucce s s ful l ydefe nded and s oughtat t or ney s ’ fee s under§ 936 butt he t r i al cour taw ar ded att or ney s ’ fee s onl yt o t he l andow nerforherdefe ns e of the p lu m b e r’s a c tio n . T h e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls re v e rse d th e trial c o u rt’s d e n ial o f fe e s to t he p l um ber. T he O klahom a S up rem e C ou rtt hen ov erturned the cou rtof ap peals , h o ld in g th a t th e la n d o w n e r’ s s u it w a s n o t a n a c tio n fo r l a b o r o r s e rv ic e s . R u ss e ll v. F l anagan , 5 4 4 P .2 d a t 5 1 2 ; s ee als o Indep. Sch. D is t . No. 4 v. E nergy-27-

C ons er vat i on E ng’g, Inc. , 727 P. 2d 599, 600- 01 ( O kl a. C i v. A pp. 1986) ( hol di ng th a t a s c h o o l d istric t’s s u it ag a in st a n e n g in e e rin g firm fo r b re a c h o f a c o n tra c t to im p ro v e its sc h o o l’s h e a tin g sy ste m s w a s a su it t o re c o v e r a n in c re a se in th e c o sts of cons t ruct i on and ther efor e di d notdi r ect l yr el at e t o t he r endi t i on of l aboror serv ices). C ons equent l y , t he aw ar d of att or ney s ’ fee s t o M r . B ur rus s m us tbe rev erse d . W e a ffirm the a w ard o f a tt o rne y s’ fe es in reg ard to M r. B ail eyan d E arp E lectri c’s c lai m s fo r bre ac h o f c o n tr ac t and q u an tum m eru it . M r. B ail eyan d E arp E l ectr i c cl ai m ed thatt heypr ovi ded s er vi ces forSel r ahc a nd t hatSel r ahc r an them off t he job an d d i d n ot payfor t heircon t ract ed servi ces. N evert heles s, becau se t he or deraw ar di ng at t or ney s ’ fee s di d nots peci fyw hatpor t i on of the $96, 938. 46 at t or ney s ’ fee aw ar d w as due t o eac h of the thr ee pa r t i es , w e mustr emand t o t he dis t ri ctcou rtfor furt her fi nd i ng s. 05- 7116 I n t hei rcr os s appea l , M r . B ai l eyand Earp E l ectr i c compl ai n t hatt he di s t r i ct c o u rt e rr e d in a w a rd in g $ 5 6 ,2 5 4 .5 3 in a tto rn e y s ’ fe e s to M r. R o y e in d iv id u a lly. A s not ed above , M r . B ai l eyand Earp E l ectr i c br oughtcl ai m s agai ns tbot h Sel r ahc a n d M r . R o ye . T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tg r a n t e d j u d g m e n ta s a m a t t e ro f l a w t o M r . R o ye a s to a ll o f

th e c laim s a ss e rte d a g a in st h im a n d su b se q u e n tlya w a rd e d h im at t orney s’ fees.-28-

M r . B ai l eyand Earp E l ectr i c do notappea l t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s gr antof j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw t o M r . R oy e, nordo t heydi s put e thathe w as ent i t l ed t o s om e att or ney s ’ fee s forpr evai l i ng on t he cl ai m s agai ns thi m . B utt heyar gue t hatt he amount of att or neyfee s aw ar ded t o C har l es R oy e i m pr oper l yi ncl uded pr act i cal l yal l of the att or neyfee s i ncurr ed bySel r ahc. W e agr ee. M r . B ai l eyand Earp E l ectr i c ar gued t o t he di s t r i ctcour tt hatal m os tal l of t he att or ney s ’ fee s cl ai m ed byM r . R oy e w er e al s o i ncurr ed bySel r ahc. T hey t hen ar gued thatM r . R oy e s houl d onl ybe al l ow ed t o r ecove rat t or ney s ’ fee s i ncu rr ed solel yi n h i s defen se of M r. B ai l eyand E arp E l ect ri c’s cl ai m s agai nst hi m beca us e the otherfee s w oul d have be en i ncurr ed eve n i f M r . R oy e had not been a par t y . T he di s t r i ctcour tt hen hel d t hat n o a u th o rityh a s b e e n p re se n ted b yB a ileya n d E a rp to su p p o rt th e ir cont ent i on t hata pr evai l i ng par t ycannotr ecove ri t s at t or ney ’ s fee s and cos t s beca us e the s ame at t or neyr epr es ent ed a non- pr evai l i ng part y . T he fa ctt he tw o p art i es r epresent ed b yM r. H ay es i n thi s case h a d p a r a l l e l i n t e r e s t s d o e s n o tl o g i c a l l y p r e c l u d e r e c o v e r y. A pl t . A pp. at153. O n ap peal, M r. B ai l eyand E arp E l ect ri c rei t erat e t heirdis tri ctcou rtcl ai m s, c iti n g to O k lah o m a c a se law re g a rd in g a p p o rtio n m e n t o f a tto rn e y s’ fe e a w a rd s in ar gui ng t hatt he di s t r i ctcour ts houl d have a ppor t i oned the att or ney s ’ fee s betw een M r. R o y e a n d S elrah c. M r. R o y e c o u n ters th at M r. B ail eyan d E arp E lectri c’s c laim s w e re a g a in st b o th h im a n d S e lra h c a n d th a t-29-

[i ]tw as [M r. B ai l eyand E arp E l ect ri c’s ] deci si on t o fram e t heircase o n th e th e o ryth a t C h a rle s R o y e a n d S E L R A H C w e re id e n tica l. T h is un avo i dab l yres ult ed in at t orneyt i m e being ex pen ded i n the defen se of both C har l es R oy e and SEL R A H C , and the l ow ercour tdi d not aw ar d anyat t or neyfee s forw or k per for m ed exc l us i vel yfor S EL RAHC. A p le e . B r. a t 3 . T her e i s no need t o r es or tt o di s cus s i on of O kl ahoma cas e l aw r egar di ng a p p o rt io n m e n t o f

a tto rn e y s ’ fe e s a m o n g v a ri o u s le g a l c la im s to re s o lv e th is p o in t. A r evi ew of the bi l l i ng r ecor ds s ubm i t t ed i n s uppor tof M r . R oy e’ s m ot i on for fe e s s h o w s th a t m a n yo f th e lis te d c h a rg e s a p p lie d to b o th M r. R o y e a n d S e lr a h c . T he mostobvi ous exampl e i s t he bi l l i ng fort he four - dayt r i al and the pr epar at i on fo r th a t trial. T h e fe e a ffid a v it fro m M r. R o y e ’s le a d a tto rn e ysh o w s th a t h is hour l ybi l l i ng r at e w as $150. T he affi davi ts how s t w el ve hour s char ged att hat r at e for“Tri al atM cA l es t er ” on Sept ember 8, 2003; ni ne hour s char ged fort he t r i al on Sept ember 9, 2003; t hi r t een hour s char ged fort he tr i al and “w or k on i nvoi ces ” on Sept ember 10, 2003; and ni ne hour s char ged fort he tr i al on Sept ember 12, 2003. A pl t . A pp. at113. T hes e ar e ful l day s of l egal w or k t hat c o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n le g a lly c h a rg e d to b o th M r. R o y e a n d S e lr a h c . I n t hi s cas e ther e w er e tw o cl i ent s t o w hom t hes e l egal fee s w er e t o be char ged. W hen an a t t or neyhas done l egal w or k t hatbenef i t s t w o cl i ent s , i ti s not p ro p e r fo r th a t atto rn e yto a v e r a f ter th e fa c t th a t all o f

th e leg a l w o rk w a s s o lely fort he bene fi tof the cl i entw ho has been a w ar ded att or ney ’ s fee s . T he bur den ofI n l i ghtof ourrul i ng on thi s poi nt , w e nee d notaddr es s M r . B ai l eyand 5 E arp E l ectr i c’ s ar gum entt hatt he amount of att or ney s ’ fee s aw ar ded w as s o hi gh as t o be unr eas onabl e and t o cons t i tut e an a bus e of di s cr et i on. -30- p ro o f is o n th e p a rtyc laim in g a tto rn e y s’ fe e s to p ro v e e n tit lem e n t an d to “document [] t he appr opr i at e hour s expende d and hour l yr at es . ” Hens l ey v . E ckerha rt , 4 6 1 U .S . 4 2 4 , 4 3 7 (1 9 8 3 ). T h e d istric t co u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in a w a rd in g a tto rn e y ’s fe e s p u rs u a n t to a n a ffid a v it th a t w a s im p ro p e r o n its fa c e . R ever s al and r emand i s t her efor e r equi r ed s o t hatt he di s t r i ctcour tm aydet er m i ne t h e a m o u n to f

a t t o r n e ys ’ fe e s a p p l i c a b l e t o M r . R o ye i n d i v i d u a l l y. 5

CO NC L US I ON T he j udgm entof the di s t r i ctcour ti n favorof M r . B ai l eyon hi s cl ai m for open ac countagai ns tSel r ahc i s R E V E R SE D . T he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s or deraw ar di ng at t or ney s ’ fee s t o M r . B ur rus s i s R E V E R SE D . T he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s or deraw ar di ng at t or ney s ’ fee s t o M r . B ai l eyand Earp E l ectr i c i s V A C A T E D and r emanded t o t he di s t r i ctcour tfordet er m i nat i on of the pr operamountt o be aw ar ded t o M r . B ai l ey and Earp E l ectr i c i n acc or dance w i t h t hi s O r derand J udgm ent . T he di s t r i ct c o u r t ’ s o r d e ra war d i n g $ 5 6 , 2 5 4 . 5 3 i n a t t o r n e y s ’ fe e s t o M r . Roy e i s VA CA TED and r emanded t o t he di s t r i ctcour tfordet er m i nat i on of the pr operamount t o be aw ar ded i n acc or dance w i t h t hi s O r derand J udgm ent . T he r emai nderof the-31-

d i s t r i c tc o u r td e c i s i o n s a p p e a l e d f r o m a r e AF F I RMED .

E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

T err ence L . O ’ B r i en C i r cui tJ udge