2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 10-24-2008 

# O p ar a ji v . NE Aut o -M arine P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-4142

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " O p a r a ji v . NE Aut o -M ar ine " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 329. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/329NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 07- 4142

___________ M A U R IC E O P A R A JI, A ppel l ant

v. NOR T H E AS T AUT O- M AR I NE T E RMI NAL ; A. T . I . , U. S . A. , I NC . ; RI CA RD O F URF ARO; HUA L NORTH AM ERI CA, I NC. a l s o k n o wn a s AUTOLI NERS I NC.

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 04- cv- 06445) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e K athar i ne S. H ay den

_________________________ Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember2, 2008 B efor e: M C K E E , SM I T H and C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udges

O pi ni on fi l ed: O ct ober24, 2008

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM Pr o s e appe l l antM aur i ce O par aj i appea l s fr om t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s : ( 1) j udgm ent i n acc or d w i t h t he j ur yver di ctent er ed O ct ober23, 2007; ( 2) amended or derent er edB eca us e O par aj i di d notor dera tr i al t r ans cr i pt , oureval uat i on of the pr ocee di ngs 1 b e lo w is b a s e d o n th e m a te ri a ls in th e a p p e n d ix a n d o n th e D is tr ic t C o u rtd o c k e t. 2 O ct ober23, 2007, pr ovi di ng fort he r etur n of O par aj i ’ s 1983 I nt ernat i onal T ruck; and ( 3) o rd e r e n ter e d N o v e m b e r 9 , 2 0 0 7 d e n y in g O p a ra ji’s m o tio n u n d e r F e d e ra l R u les o f C iv il Pr ocedur e 59 and 60. For t he r eas ons di s cus s ed bel ow , w e w i l l aff i r m t he j udgm entand o rd e rs e n te re d b yth e D is tr ic t C o u rt . I. I n D ece m ber2004, O par aj i fi l ed a c om pl ai ntagai ns tN or t h E as tA ut o- M ar i ne T er m i nal ( “N E A T ”) , A . T . I . U . SA . , I nc. ( “A . T . I . ”) , R i car do Fur far o, t he pr es i dentof A . T . I . , and H U A L N or t h A m er i ca, I nc. ( “H U A L N / A ”) , forbr eac h of contr act , br eac h of fid u ciaryd u ty , civil con sp ir ac y , co n v ersion , an d n eg li g en t r ep rese n tat ion . T h e p ri m ary iss u e a t th e O c to b e r 2 0 0 7 ju rytrial a p p e a re d to b e w h e th e r th e d e f e n d a n ts b re a c h e d th e ir contr act s w i t h O par aj i byfai l i ng t o s hi p t o N i ger i a a 1983 I nt ernat i onal T ruck that O par aj i had del i ver ed t o N E A T . O n O ct ober23, 2007, t he j ur ydet erm i ned thatt he 1 defe ndant s ent er ed i nt o contr act s w i t h O par aj i , butdi d notbr eac h t he contr act s or ot herw i s e ca us e harm t o O par aj i . H ow ever , i n m aki ng t he fi ndi ng t hatH U A L N / A and A . T . I. form ed a co ntr actw i t h O paraj i , t he jurynecessari l yrej ect ed the defen dan t s’ appar entar gum entt hatt heyw er e age nt s of a di s cl os ed pr i nci pal and ther efor e coul d not b e liab le to O p a ra

ji. T h e D istric t Ju d g e th e n iss u e d a n o rd e r f o r th e re tu rn o f

th e tru c k to O par aj i , w hi ch he ha d l eftatN E A T ’ s pr oper t ys i nce M ay2004. T he fi r s tor derfort he3

r etur n of the truck mi s s t at ed the name of def endantH U A L N / A as H U A L A / S, s o t he Di s t r i c tCo u r te n t e r e d a n a me n d e d o r d e rc h a n g i n g t h e n a me o f t h e d e f e n d a n tt o HUAL N /A . O p a ra

ji a p p e a le d f

ro m th e ju d g m e n t a n d f ro m th e o rd e r f

o r r e tu rn o f

h is tru c k . M eanw hi l e, he fi l ed i n t he D i s t r i ctC our ta mot i on underR ul es 59 and 60 s eeki ng r el i ef fr om t he j ur yver di ct . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed the mot i on i n N ovember2007, and O p a ra ji a m e n d e d h is a p p e a l to re q u e s t r e v ie w o f th a t o rd e r. II. W e hav e j uri sdi ct i on ov er this app eal pu rs uan tt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 29 1. O paraj i fi rs t m akes num er ous chal l enges t o t he j ur yi ns t ruct i ons ; how ever , beca us e ther e i s no i ndi cat i on t hathe obj ect ed t o t he i ns t ruct i ons att r i al , w e r evi ew forpl ai n err oronl y . See F e d . R . A p p . P . 5 1 (c ); C o llin s v . A lc o P a rk in g C o rp ., 4 4 8 F .3 d 6 5 2 , 6 5 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). U ndert hi s defe r ent i al s t andar d, w e w i l l “r ever s e the tr i al cour tonl yw her e a pl ai n err or w as fundament al and hi ghl ypr ej udi ci al , s uch thatt he i ns t ruct i ons fai l ed t o pr ovi de the j ur yw i t h adequa t e gui dance and ourr efus al t o cons i dert he i s s ue w oul d r es ul ti n a m i s carr i age of

j us t i ce. ” C ol l i ns , 448 F. 3d at656 ( quot i ng Fr ankl i n Pr es cr i pt i ons , I nc. v. N e w Y o rk T im e s , C o ., 4 2 4 F .3 d 3 3 6 , 3 3 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 )) . O par aj i as s er t s t hatt he j ur yi ns t ruct i on r egar di ng t he r ol e and r es pons i bi l i t i es of a f re ig h t f o rw a rd e r w a s e rro n e o u s b e c a u se it state d th a t f re ig h t f o rw a rd e rs a re n o t d ire c tly i nvol ved i n t r ans por t i ng t he ca r go and ar e notl i abl e t o t he s hi pper . T he i ns t ruct i on4

cont i nued bys t at i ng t hat“as l ong as a fr ei ghtforw ar derl i m i t s i tr ol e t o arr angi ng for t r ans por t at i on, i tcannotbe l i abl e t o t he s hi pperof goods . ” The D i s t r i ctC our tt ol d t he j ur yt hati f i tfound thatA . T . I . w as a fr ei ghtforw ar derand di d notbr eac h i t s dut i es , t hen i t“mustfi nd t hatA T I i s notl i abl e . . . foranydamages r el at ed t o t he s hi ppi ng of the vehi cl e. ” O par aj i appea r s t o acknow l edge thatA . T . I . w as a fr ei ghtforw ar der , but cont ends t hati tw as di r ect l yi nvol ved i n s hi ppi ng t he truck ( i . e. , that itac ted a s a c arrier) and w as l i abl e fordamages . T hus , he r eques t ed thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tus e an i ns t ruct i on s t at i ng, i n par t , t hata fr ei ghtforw ar der“s om et i m es act s as an age ntw ho arr anges fort he s hi pm entof goods , ” and thati t s “r es pons i bi l i t yt o t he s hi pperi s oft en thatof a c arr i er . ” T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notm ake a pl ai n err or( oranyerr or ) i n us i ng t he i ns t ruct i on t hati tdi d, ori n decl i ni ng t o us e O par aj i ’ s pr opos ed i ns t ruct i on. A fr ei ghtforw ar der “gene r al l ym ake[ s ] arr angement s fort he movem entof ca r go att he r eques tof cl i ent s and [i s ] vi t al l ydi ffe r entfr om carr i er s . . . w hi ch ar e di r ect l yi nvol ved i n t r ans por t i ng t he ca rgo . U n li k e a ca rri er, a fre igh t fo rw ard er d o es n o t i ssu e a b il l of ladin g , an d is th ere fo re no tl i a bl e t o a s hi pp e rfo ra nyt hi ng t ha toc c ur s t o the go od s be i ng s hi pp e d. ” Pr i ma U . S. I nc. v. Panal pi na, I nc. , 223 F. 3d 126, 129 ( 2d C i r . 2000) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed) ; s ee al s o 46 U . S. C . A . § 40102( 18) ( A ) ( defi ni ng “oce an fr ei ghtforw ar der ”) . T he D i s t r i ct C o u rtp rop erlyd ef

ined “f reigh t fo rw ard er” an d d id n o t err byd ec li n ing to u se O p ara ji ’s pr opos ed i ns t ruct i on. Fur t herm or e, i f O par aj i bel i eved thatA . T . I . had ac t ed as a ca r r i er and w as l i abl e as s uch, i tw as hi s bur den t o pr ove thatfac tatt r i al . See Pr i m a, 223 F. 3d at5

230 n. 1. Fi nal l y , even i f the D i s t r i ctC our ti ncorr ect l ydes cr i bed the r ol e and r es pons i bi l i t yof a f

r ei ghtforw ar der , s uch an e r r orw oul d nothave r es ul t ed i n a m isc a rria g e o f

ju stic e b e c a u se th e ju ryf o u n d th a t A .T .I. did n o t b re a c h its c o n tra c t w ith O p a ra ji. O par aj i al s o ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed byi ns t ruct i ng t he j ur ybyus i ng “h ea rsaystat em en ts” su ch as: “H U A L N /A an d N E A T claim theyw ere ag en ts fo r a d isc lo se d p rin c ip a l.” A c c o rd in g to O p a ra ji, th e D istric t C o u rt a lso d id n o t ad e q u a tely gui de the j ur yas t o w ho w as t he pr i nci pal . T he j ur yi ns t ruct i on i n ques t i on s t at ed thatt he j ur y“maycons i derw hethert her e w as an age ncyr el at i ons hi p betw een H U A L N / A and N E A T . . . . I f y ou fi nd t hatt he age ntent er ed i nt o a contr acton behal f of the pr i nci pal , and s uch a pr i nci pal w as know n t o t he othercontr act i ng par t i es , t hen y ou m us tfi nd t hatt he agentw as nota part yt o t hatcontr act . ” O par aj i ’ s ar gum enti s m er i t l es s fors ever al r eas ons . Fi r s t , a part y ’ s pos i t i on on an i s s ue as s t at ed i n a j ur yi ns t ruct i on i s nothear s ayform anyr eas ons , i ncl udi ng t he fa ctt hat i ti s not“off

er ed i n evi dence t o pr ove the trut h of the mat t eras s er t ed. ” See Fed. R . E vi d. 8 0 1 (c ) (d e f

in in g h e a rsa y ). S e c o n d , “a p a rtyis e n tit led to a sp e c if ic in stru c tio n o n its t heoryof the ca s e, ” i f i ti s cons i s t entw i t h t he evi dence of the ca s e, r athert han a “ gener al orabs t r actchar ge. ” 9C C har l es A l an W r i ght& A r t hurR . M i l l er , Feder al Pr act i ce a nd Pr ocedur e § 2556 ( 2d ed. ) ; s ee M as s ar s kyv. G en. M ot or s C orp. , 706 F. 2d 111, 134 ( 3d C ir. 1 9 8 3 ). T h ird , ev e n if , fo r so m e re a so n , O p a ra ji w a s c o rre c t th a t th e in stru c tio n d id6

notgi ve ade quat e gui dance as t o w ho t he di s cl os ed pr i nci pal w as , t hi s err orw oul d be harm l es s , as t he j ur yr ej ect ed H U A L N / A ’ s and N E A T ’ s agenc ydefe ns e and f ound t hat th e d e f e n d a n ts f o rm e d a c o n tr a c t w ith O p a ra ji. N ext , O par aj i cont ends t hatatt r i al he pr oved thatA . T . I . and i t s pr es i dent , Fur far o, br eac hed thei rcontr actw i t h hi m , and r es t at es t he ar gum ent s t hathe l i kel ypr es ent ed at t r i al . H e mer el ydi s agr ees w i t h t he j ur y ’ s ver di ct , and thi s C our taff or ds gr eatdefe r ence t o j ur ydeci s i ons , and w i l l notr ever s e unl es s t he r ecor d s how s a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce or “the ver di ct. . . cr i es outt o be overtur ned ors hocks ourcons ci ence . ” G r eenl eaf v. G a rlo c k , In c ., 1 7 4 F .3 d 3 5 2 , 3 6 6 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 9 ) (in ter n a l cita tio n o m itt e d ). H e re , O p a ra ji fai l s t o demonst r at e thatt he j ur y ’ s ver di ct“s hocks ” the cons ci ence . T he j ur yw as ent i t l ed to b eli ev e tha t th e d ef

en d an ts did n o t brea ch their co n tr ac t and d isbe li ev e O p ara ji ’s versi on of ev ents . O par aj i nextappea l s fr om t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derdi r ect i ng t hatt he 1983 In ter n a tio n a l T ru c k b e re tu rn e d to h im . H e h a s, h o w e v e r, f a iled to p ro v id e a n yleg iti m a te bas i s forvaca t i ng t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or der . H e mer el yr ei t er at es hi s cl ai m t hatt he defe ndant s br eac hed thei rcontr actw i t h r egar d t o s hi ppi ng t he truck and i m pl i es t hathe s h o u ld n o t h a v e to d e a l w ith s to ri n g th e v e h ic le , w h ic h is in d is p u ta b ly h is p ro p e rt y . A ccor di ngl y , w e af

fi r m the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derdi r ect i ng t hatt he 1983 truck be r etur ned to O p a ra ji. Fi nal l y , O par aj i appea l s fr om t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on forr el i efT he D i s t r i ctC our tcons t rued O par aj i ’ s “D ecl ar at i on” as a mot i on s eeki ng r el i ef 2 f ro m th e ju ry v e rd ic t a n d f o r a n e w tr ia l u n d e r R u le s 5 9 a n d 6 0 .

7 f ro m th e ju ryv e rd ict u n d e r R u les 5 9 a n d 6 0 . W e re v iew th e d e n ial o f R u le 6 0 a n d R u le 2 59 m ot i ons forabus e of di s cr et i on. C ol t ec I ndus . , I nc. v. H obgood, 280 F. 3d 262, 269 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ; R ot ondo v. K eene C orp. , 956 F. 2d 436, 438 ( 3d C i r . 1992) . H er e, O par aj i ’ s ar gum ent s underR ul es 59 and 60 foc us ed on hi s uns ubs t ant i at ed bel i ef thatt he ju ryf o u n d th e d e f

e n d a n ts to b e n o t li a b le b e c a u se it p u rp o rte d lyth o u g h t th a t H U A L A /S (w h ich w a s n o t a d e f

e n d a n t), rath e r th a n H U A L N /A o r N E A T , w a s re sp o n sib le f o r h is d a m a g e s . O par aj i ’ s R ul e 60 ar gum entas s er t ed thatt he ver di cts houl d be vac at ed bec aus e he cl ai m ed that“the def

endant s fr audul ent l y. . . di s cl os ed H ual A / S as t he pr i nci pal , ” and th e n a m e o f

“ H u a l A /S w a s s m u g g led ” in to th e ju ryd e lib e ra tio n s. T h e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in re jec tin g th e se c laim s. O p a ra ji p ro v id e d n o su p p o rt f o r h is as s er t i on and di d notexpl ai n w hy , even i f the j ur ybel i eved thatH U A L A / S w as t he p ri n cipa l, this w o u ld h av e re su lt ed in a v erd ictfo r th e d ef en d an ts. F u rth erm o re, O p ara ji ’s ar gum entagai n i gnor es t hatt he j ur yr ej ect ed H U A L N / A ’ s and N E A T ’ s agenc ydefe ns e. T he D i s t r i ctC our teval uat ed O par aj i ’ s addi t i onal ar gum ent s undert he rubr i c of R u le 5 9 , as h e c o n ten d e d th a t itw a s im p ro p e r f o r th e D istric t C o u rt to in stru c t th e ju ryto det er m i ne w hetherH U A L N / A and N E A T w er e age nt s of H U A L A / S, and thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tvi ol at ed the pr i nci pl e of c ol l at er al es t oppel byadmi t t i ng evi dence of s ucha n a g e n c yre latio n sh ip b e c a u se th e D istric t C o u rt h a d e a rlier d e ter m in e d th a t H U A L A /S

w as noti nvol ved i n t he l aw s ui t . T he D i s t r i ctC our tfound thathi s fi r s tar gum entfai l ed b e c a u se th e ju ryd e ter m in e d th a t th e re w e re c o n tra c ts b e tw e e n O p a ra ji an d H U A L N /A an d N E A T , an d d id n o t fi n d that there w as a n ag en cyrelati o n sh ip. A d d it ion all y , the ju ry i ns t ruct i ons m ake no ment i on of H U A L A / S. T he D i s t r i ctC our tr ej ect ed the col l at er al e sto p p e l ar g u m e n t b e c a u se it n e v e r m a d e a n yd e ter m in a tio n a s to w h e th e r H U A L A /S w a s th e p rin c ip a l o f

H U A L N /A o r N E A T . O p a ra ji h a s n o t p u t f

o rw a rd a n yleg iti m a te ar gum entas t o how t he D i s t r i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on, and w e fi nd t hatt he D i s t r i ct C o u rt c o rr e c tly d e n ie d h is m o tio n a s m e ri tle s s . For t he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l t he af fi r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s : ( 1) j udgm ent ent er ed on O ct ober23, 2007, ( 2) amended or derent er ed O ct ober23, 2007; and ( 3) or der ent er ed N ovember 9, 2007.

8