NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

________________ No. 16-4450

________________ DARREN M. NANCE, Appellant v. CITY OF NEWARK; NEWARK POLICE DEPARTMENT; THE MAYOR, SHARPE JAMES; JOSEPH J. SANTIAGO; THOMAS C. O’REILLY; ROBERT K. RANKIN, JR.;

MITCHELL MCQUIRE; MICHAEL O’CONNOR; JAMES DAVID O’CONNOR; WILLIE E. UNDERWOOD; IRVING B. GULLER; JOSE OMAR COLON; CHADRAKANT PATEL; JAMES E. TUNIS; ISABELLA CASTELLANOS; VINCENT BONGERMINO; JOHN DOES (1-10); RI CHARD PARABOSCHI; NICHOLAS MARESCA; ANTHONY CAMPOS; JOHN ZAKOWSKI

________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil Action No. 2-97-cv-06184) District Judge: Honorable Jose L. Linares

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) September 27, 2017 Before: AMBRO, KRAUSE, Ci rcuit Judges, and CONTI  , Chief District Judge

(Opinion filed: October 27, 2017)

 Honorable Chief Judge Joy Flow ers Conti, District Court Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.2 OPINION *

________________ AMBRO, Circuit Judge The City of Newark, New Jersey, termin ated Darren Nance as a police officer in September 1996. He sued Ne wark for wrongful terminati on, and in June 2010 a jury returned a verdict in his fa vor. It awarded Nance $350,0 00 in compensa tory damages (including lost wages) and $ 250,000 in punitive damages. Fast forward to early 2015 when Nance submitted correspondence to the District Court from New Jersey’s Department of Treasury stating the jury award must indicate the period involved, the amount, and the total valu e of mitigated damages in order to collect his pension and receive years-of-service cred it for the period betwee n his termination and the jury award. It did not contain this in formation, and hence Na nce could not have his pension reinstated with back pay and service credit. The District Court entered an Order stating the time applicable to the award an d that the amount of mitigated wages was $350,000. Nance submitted to the Court ad ditional correspondence from the State of New Jersey stating the correct amount of m itigated wages was $980,94 2.97. In response, the Court issued an Amended Order reflecting that amount. Nance followed up by seeking an order to show cause to enforce Newark’s compliance with the Amended Or der. The District Court, however, ruled that Newark

* This disposition is not an op inion of the full Court and pu rsuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.3 complied with the Order and denied a show cause order. Nance refused to back down and made another filing claimi ng he is owed mitigated wage s of $980,942.97 (referred to in the Amended Order as “back pay”) and as serting Newark should be held in civil contempt and sanctioned for its failure to pay. The Court denied relief, ruling that Nance sought moneys not contemplated by the jury award and the Amended Order in no way increased Nance’s damages by that amount. Nance appeals this denial and our revi ew is for an abuse of discretion. HarleyDavidson, Inc. v. Morris , 19 F.3d 142, 145 (3d Cir. 1994) (internal citations omitted). “The district court may be reversed only wher e the denial is based on an error of law or a finding of fact that is clearly erroneous.” Id. (internal citation omitted). A decision is clearly erroneous if “the reviewing court on th e entire evidence is le ft with the definite and firm conviction that a mi stake has been committed.” United States v. U.S. Gypsum
Co. , 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948). Nance makes three arguments to us. The first concerns the District Court’s denial of his motion for order to show cause and motion for judgment. He contends Newark made statements at oral argument before the Co urt that erroneously led it to believe all or a portion of the jury verdict was wages a nd the Court lacked jurisdiction over the enforcement proceeding. Appellant’s Br. at 14. The District Court did not err; its holding that the jury award in cluded lost wages is plainl y based on the Jury Verdict Sheet, which specifically instru cted the jury to calculat e compensatory damages and include lost wages. Additionally, nowhere in the record does the Co urt state it did not have jurisdiction over enforcement of its orders.4 Second, Nance claims that under N.J.A.C. § 17:1-2.18 the District Court erred in holding the $980,942.97 mitig ated wages amount was fo r the purpose of pension reporting and not an increase in damages. Once again, th e Court did not err. The New Jersey statute Nance cites requires an awar d or settlement of full back pay be made before any obligation to pay it is triggered. See N.J.A.C. § 17:1-2.18(a). He did not receive a jury award of full back pay. He received compensatory damages in the amount of $350,000, whereas the to tal back pay amount put forward by Nance’s expert was approximately $700,000. Nance v. City of Newark , No. 2:97-cv-06184, 2014 WL 346553, at *3 (D.N.J. Jan. 30, 2014). Ad ditionally, the Court explained the Amended Order was issued at Nance’s request solely based on his representations that it was necessary and required by the State of New Jers ey to process his pension benefits. In no event was it an increase in damages. 1 Indeed, a letter from Nanc e’s counsel’s in 2015 to the Court makes plain Nance requested the m itigated wages amount be reflected in an order only for pension benefit purposes. To grant that request did not increase the damages in his award. Nance’s final argument is that the Di strict Court erred in denying him nonpensionable wage items because these ite ms are contractually linked to actual pensionable wages to which Na nce is entitled. We need no t reach this argument because

1 Nance also claims the Ame nded Order granted him equitabl e relief requiring Newark to give him pensionable service cr edit, fund his pension, and pr ovide him medical benefits. However, the Court did not grant Nance equitabl e relief in its Amended Order; rather, its purpose was only to provide the State of New Jersey the information it needed to process Nance’s pension benefits.5 the jury did not award Nance actual wages— it awarded him damages that included lost

wages. We thus affirm.