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

 ORDER

Page - 1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

GENERAL METALS OF TACOMA, INC., a

Washington corporation, and ARKEMA,

INC., a Pennsylvania corporation,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BEAN ENVIRONMENTAL L.L.C., a

Delaware limited liability company, and

BEAN DREDGING L.L.C., a Louisiana

limited liability company,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5306RBL

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, A NEW

TRIAL

This matter comes before the Court on defendants’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the

verdict or new trial. [Dkt. #370]. The Court has reviewed the pleadings on this issue and is fully informed

as to the factual and legal issues implicated in the motion and for the following reasons hereby DENIES

the motion.

A court may overturn a jury’s verdict by granting a motion for judgment notwithstanding the

verdict under FRCP 50 where there is no legally sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party. 

All evidence in the record is to be considered, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving

party. See Quantz v. Edwards, 2006 Dist. LEXIS 26769, 6-7 (D. Wash. 2006); City Solutions Inc. v.

Clear Channel Communications, 365 F.3d 835, 839 (9th Cir. 2003).

A new trial may be granted to all or any of the parties on all or part of the issues in an action in

Case 3:05-cv-05306-RBL Document 397 Filed 03/30/07 Page 1 of 3
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

 ORDER

Page - 2

which there has been a trial by jury if the verdict is contrary to the clear weight of the evidence, or is based

upon evidence which is false, or to prevent, in the sound discretion of the trial court, a miscarriage of

justice. Thornton v. Hill, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85716, 2-3 (D. Wash. 2006); Oltz v. St. Peter’s

Community Hosp., 861 F.2d 1440, 1452 (9th Cir. 1988).

The Court has reviewed the evidence and the law submitted by the parties over the course of this

litigation, including during trial, and is convinced that there is substantial evidence to support the jury

verdict, that no defect in the proceedings resulted in a miscarriage of justice and that both sides in the

litigation had a full and fair opportunity to argue their theory of the case.

Plaintiffs’ case, simply put, was that Bean over-promised and under-performed with regard to the

dredging contract signed with HHCG. Defendants claimed, and argued to the jury, that circumstances

beyond their control required HHCG to grant additional time under the contract to complete the dredging. 

Bean also contended that HHCG withheld material information from Bean at the formation of the contract

and therefore HHCG was liable to Bean, in damages or for rescission, for fraud or misrepresentation. The

jury instructions and the verdict form allowed Bean to argue its position and allowed the jury to reach a

verdict consistent with either theory if so persuaded. Contrary to Beans’ post-trial motion, the verdict

form did not prevent the jury from fully deliberating all issues in the case. Jury Instruction No. 1

admonishes all jurors to follow all of the instructions and to not single out some and ignore others. Jury

Instruction No. 29 instructs the jury to fill out the Verdict form after they have reached a unanimous

agreement on a verdict. The Court has no reason to believe that the jury disregarded these instructions and

failed to deliberate on any of the claims made by Bean. The evidence is to the contrary. The jury agreed

that Bean had the capacity to complete dredging in one season, they failed to complete the dredging in one

season as promised, and Bean’s breach caused HHCG to incur substantial damages. The jury further

concluded that Bean should be paid for all work actually performed, including the work HHCG claimed as

“defective dredging.” The jury clearly found that HHCG did not breach the agreement by withholding

payments from Bean (either for “defective dredging” or because Bean could not finish the dredging on

time). Finally, the jury also found no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of HHCG. These issues were

fully presented to the jury at trial, the jury was instructed on the law as to each theory and provided an

opportunity to accept or reject each theory in the verdict form. 

Case 3:05-cv-05306-RBL Document 397 Filed 03/30/07 Page 2 of 3
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

 ORDER

Page - 3

The jury reached a verdict in favor of HHCG and that verdict is supported by the evidence. 

Accordingly, the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or for new trial [Dkt. #370] is

DENIED. The Court’s Order Staying Execution of Judgment Pending Post-Trial Motions [Dkt. #375] is

hereby VACATED.

DATED this 29th day of March, 2007.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05306-RBL Document 397 Filed 03/30/07 Page 3 of 3