## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 0- 37 13

__ __ __ __ __ _ The W ei tz Co m

pa ny LL C, *

* App el la nt , *

*

v. * App eal fro m th e Uni te d S ta te s
* Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e Mac Ken zi e Hou se , LLC; * W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i. MH Me tro po li ta n, LLC; * Arro whe ad Co nt ract in g, In c.; * Co nc or de Co ns tru ct io n C o., In c., *

* App el le es

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _
Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 20 , 20 11 Fi le d: Jan ua ry

5, 2 01 2

__ __ __ __ __ _ Befo re MELLOY, SMITH, an d B ENTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ _ BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

The W ei tz Co m

pa ny, LLC su ed Mac Ken zi e Hou se , LLC an d MH
Met ro po li ta n, LLC fo r br each of a co ns t r uc ti on co nt ract

. Arro whe ad Co nt ract in g, In c. an d Co nc or de Co
., In c. are th ird -p art y de fen da nt s. M H Met ro po li ta n

co un te rcl ai m ed fo r br each of th e sa m e co nt ract , se ek in g li qu id at ed da m ag es an d th e

c o s t to co m

pl et e th e pr ojec t. Arro whe ad al so co un te rcl ai m ed

. The jury ret ur ne d a

ve rd ic t of $4 ,99 1,9 70 .87 fo r MH Met ro po li ta n, of $5 56 ,11 0 fo r Arro whe ad
, an d fo rCo nc or de on W ei tz ’s cl ai m

. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed po st -jud gm en t m ot io ns

. W ei tz 1

ap pe al s. J ur is di ct io n b ei ng pro pe r un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1, t hi s co ur t af fir m s. 2

I.

Mac Ken zi e Hou se was th e de ve lo pe r o f a m ul ti -b ui ld in g ap art m en t pr ojec t kn own as th e Met ro po li ta n Apa rtments

. Mac Ken zi e was al so th e m an ag in g m em be r of MH Met ro po li ta n, th e own er of th e Apa rtments

. MH Met ro po li ta n hi red W ei tz as th e ge ne ral co nt ract or

. W ei tz in it ia ll y ag reed to co m pl et e th e pr ojec t wit hi n 45 8 da y s f o r a m ax im

um pr ic e of $1 3,4 98 ,00 6. The ti m e fo r co m pl et io n was ul ti m at el y

ex te nd ed to 50 7 d a ys , wit h th e m ax im um pr ic e in crea se d to $1 4,4 01 ,60 9. W ei tz

su bc on tra ct ed wit h Arr owh ead an d C on co rd e, am on g o th ers

.

W or k on th e Apa rtments was de la y ed

. W ei tz at tri bu te s t h e d e l a ys to it s

su bc on tra ct or s. MH Met ro po li ta n bl am es W ei tz , as se rti ng se ve ral m at eri al br each es , in cl ud in g fail in g to pr ov id e req ui red li en waiv ers , all owi ng li en s t o b e fil ed ag ai ns t th e pr ojec t, pr ov id in g po or qu al it y co ns tru ct io n, an d fal si fy in g a pa y ap pl ic at io n. MH
Met ro po li ta n co nt en ds it ex erci se d it s co nt ract ua l rig ht to wit hh ol d pa y m en t on two

o f W ei tz ’s a pp li cat io ns

. W ei tz st op pe d wor k on Decem be r 26 , 2 00 6. B y t h e n , t h e fir st Bu il di ng of th e pr ojec t was fo ur m on th s la te , an d th e en ti re pr ojec t two m on th s la te . On Ja nu ary 1 8, 20 07 , MH Met ro po li ta n t erm in at ed W ei tz for cau se , fin is hi ng th e p ro ject wi th ou t Weit z.

The ne xt m on th
, W ei tz su ed Mac Ken zi e Hou se an d MH Met ro po li ta n fo r th e

un pa id co nt ract ba la nc es

. MH Metro po li ta n cou nt ercl ai m ed fo r br each of co nt ract ,
se ek in g li qu id at ed da m ag es an d th e co st to co m pl et e. Acco rd in g t o M H

The Hon or ab le Ortr ie D. Sm it h, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 1 Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

Thi s o pi ni on su pe rced es th e o pi ni on fil ed on Decem be r 8, 2 01 1. 2

-2

-Met ro po li ta n, W ei t z ’s m is m an ag em en t was cau se to st op pa y m en t an d can cel th e

co nt ract

. W ei tz m ad e th ird -p art y cla im s ag ai ns t Arrowh ead an d Con co rd e fo r th ei r al le ge dl y de fe c ti ve wor k, th e co st to co m pl et e th ei r wor k, an d th e de la y s th ey al le ge dl y cau se d. Arro whe ad co un te rcl ai m ed fo r am ou nt s du e un de r it s su bc on tra ct , arg ui ng W ei tz ter m in at ed it im pr op erl y

.

The jury award ed MH Met ro po li ta n li qu id at ed da m ag es of $3 ,02 2,5 20 du e to
pr ojec t del ay , an d $1 ,96 9,4 50 .87 fo r th e co st of co m pl et io n. The jury al so award ed
Arro whe ad $5 56 ,11 0
, a nd fo un d fo r Co nc or de

. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed po st

jud gm en t m ot io ns , ent eri ng jud gm en t o n t he jury’ s v erd ic t. Weitz ap pe al s.

II.

W ei tz co nt en ds th at th e d is tri ct co ur t er red as a m at te r of law i n s ix way s b y :

no t gr an ti ng jud gm en t as a m a t t er of la w ag ai ns t MH Met ro po li ta n; ex cl ud in g

ev id en ce of two ot he r co ns tru ct io n pr ojec ts in vo lv in g th e pa rti es ; m is cal cu la ti ng th e li qu id at ed da m ag e s an d co m pl et io n co st s; de cl in in g to en te r jud gm en t on W ei tz ’s br each -o f-co nt ract cl ai m s ag ai ns t Arro whe ad ; no t en te rin g a de fau lt jud gm en t ag ai ns t Co nc or de fo r fai li ng to ap pe ar at tri al ; an d ru li ng th at Mac Ken zi e Hou se co ul d no t be vi cari ou sl y

li ab le for th e act s o f MH Me tro po li ta n.

A.

W ei tz arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in fai li ng to gr an t it jud gm en t as a

m at te r of law o n M H Met ro po li ta n’s b reac h- of -co nt ract cla im

.

Thi s co ur t rev ie ws de no vo a de ni al of a m ot io n fo r jud g men t a s a m at te r of la w. Cha lfa nt v. Tit

an Dis tr ib ., In c. , 47 5 F.3 d 98 2, 98 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ). Ju dg m en t

as a m at te r of la w is gr an te d if “ a pa rty ha s bee n ful ly he ard on an is su e an d th ere is

no le g al ly s uf

fic ie nt ev id en ti ary b as is fo r a reas on ab le jury to fin d fo r th at pa rty o n

-3

-th at is su e.” Fed. R. Civ

. P. 50 (a )(1 )

. Thi s co ur t m ak es al l reas on ab le in fere nc es in

fav or of th e no nm ov in g pa rty an d vi ews th e fact s m os t fav or ab ly t o t h a t pa rty. Cha lfa nt , 47 5 F .3d at 9 88

.

Dur in g th e twel ve -d ay tri al
, MH Metro po li ta n p res en te d e vi de nc e th at W ei tz

co m m it te d se ve ral m at eri al br each es — fai li ng to pr ov id e th e req ui red li en waiv ers , al lo win g li en s to be fil ed ag ai ns t th e pr ojec t, cau si ng su bs ta nt ia l de la y s in th e pr ojec t,

co m pl et in g po or qu al it y co ns tru ct io n, a n d f al si fy in g a pa y ap pl ic at io n. MH
Met ro po li ta n su bm it t e d te st im on y an d vi de os sh owi ng W ei tz ’s po or qu al it y

co ns tru ct io n. Th e jury als o h eard th at W ei tz co ul d no t p ro pe rly prep are, u pd at e, or fo ll ow it s sc he du le s, whi ch co nt rib ut ed to de la y in g th e pr ojec t. The pr ojec t arch it ect

co nc lu de d th at W ei tz br each ed th e co nt ract in at l eas t t he se res pe ct s. The ev id en ce
at tri al al so es ta bl is he d ot he r br each es

. As a res ul t, MH Met ro po li ta n e xe rci se d th e

co nt ract ua l rig ht to wit hh ol d pa y m en t an d te rm in at e W ei t z f o r cau se

. As th e jury in st ru ct io ns no te d, to reco ve r f o r br each of co nt ract , a pa rty m us t sh ow it s own

su bs ta nt ia l co m

pl ia nc e wit h th e co nt ract

. B r o c km an v. So lt ys ia k
, 49 S.W .3d 74 0,
74 5 (Mo

. App

. 20 01 ). W ei tz al le ge s th at it co m pl ie d wit h th e co nt ract , bu t whe th er

a co nt ract ha s be en su bs ta nt ia ll y pe rfo rm ed de pe nd s on th e fact s and ci rcu m st an ces of th e pa rti cu la r cas e. In re Es ta te of Eng li sh
, 6 9 1 S.W .2d 48 5, 48 9 (Mo

. App

. 19 8 5 ). The jury as fact fin de r res ol ve d th is is su e ag ai ns t W ei tz

. Se e Br ow ni ng v. Pres id ent Ri ver Bo at Ca si no -Mi ss ou ri , In c. , 1 3 9 F.3 d 63 1, 63 4 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 ) (“ App el la te rev ie w of a jury ve rd ic t i s ex tre m el y de fere nt ia l” ). Ther e was a le ga ll y

su ffi ci en t ev id en ti ary ba si s fo r th e jury’ s v erd ic t. Se e 8t h Cir . R. 47 B

.

B.

We i t z m ai nt ai ns th at th e di st ric t co ur t in co rrec tl y ex cl ud ed ev id en ce o f t w o
ot he r co ns tru ct io n p ro

jects — o ne en di ng in li ti ga ti on — i nv ol vi ng th e p art ie s. 3

W ei tz Co . v. MH W

as hi ng to n , 63 1 F .3d 51 0 (8 th Cir . 20 11 ). 3

-4

-Thi s co ur t res pe ct s th e di st ric t co u r t ’s “‘wide di sc ret io n in ad m it ti ng an d

ex cl ud in g ev id en ce, an d it s de ci si on wil l no t be di st ur be d un le ss th ere is a cl ear an d

pr ejud ic ia l ab us e of di sc ret io n.’” McPhe et er s v. Bl a c k & Vea t c h Co rp . , 42 7 F.3 d
10 95
, 11 01 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. To warra nt rev ers al
, su ch a pr ejud ic ia l ab us e of di sc ret io n m

us t al so affe ct th e su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s of a pa rty. Id

. Lik e w i s e , th e de ni al of a m ot io n fo r a ne w tr i a l i s r e v ie wed fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n. Cha lfa nt , 47 5 F.3 d at 99 2. “ The cru ci al de te rm in at io n ‘is whe th er a ne w tri al sh ou ld ha ve b e e n gr an te d to av oi d a m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce.’” PFS Dis tr ib

. Co

. v. Ra du eche l , 57 4 F .3d 58 0, 5 89 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

.

Mac Ken zi e Hou se was th e de ve lo pe r on t h e t w o ot he r pr ojec ts W ei tz refe ren ces (o th er co rp or at e en ti ti es Mac Ken zi e Hou se m an ag ed own ed th e pr ojec ts ).
Eve n as su m in g th at MH Met ro po li ta n an d Mac Ken zi e Hous e are on e en ti ty, ho wev er,

ev id en ce o f pr io r or ot he r act s “ is no t adm is si bl e to pr ov e th e ch arac te r of a p ers on in or de r to sh ow co nf

or m it y th erewi th .” Fed. R. Ev id

. 40 4( b). “ [P]rio r act s in cl ud e
pr io r la wsu it s.” Ba ti

st e-Da vi s v. Linc ar e, In c. , 52 6 F.3 d 37 7, 38 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). Evi de nc e of pr io r or ot he r act s “ m ay , ho wev er, be ad m is si bl e fo r ot he r pu rp os es , su ch

as pr oo f of m ot iv e, op po rtu ni ty, in te nt , pr ep arat io n, pl an , kn owl ed ge , id en ti ty, or ab se nc e of m is ta ke or acci de nt .” Fe d

. R

. Ev id

. 40 4( b). Thi s type of ev id en ce is ad m it te d on ly whe n on e of th es e le gi ti m at e pu rp os es is at is su e in th e cas e. Ki ng v. Ar ens , 16 F.3 d 26 5, 26 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 94 ); Don al d v. Ra st , 92 7 F.2 d 37 9, 38 1 (8 th Ci r. 19 91 ).

The on ly clai m s i n t hi s ca se are fo r br each of c on tra ct . The i ss ue at tri al was whe th er t he pa rti es co m

pl ie d wit h t he co nt ract . Prov in g a bre ach he re d oe s n ot pu t

m ot iv e, in te nt , p la n, or kn owl ed ge at is su e. S e e U ni t Dri ll in g Co

. v. Enr on Oil &
Gas Co

. , 10 8 F.3 d 11 86
, 11 94 (1 0t h Ci r. 19 97 ). W ei tz arg ue s th at MH Met ro po li ta n

“ op en ed th e do or ” to th e ev id en ce, bu t po in ts to no in st an ce whe re MH Met ro po li ta n fo cu se d on th e ot he r pr ojec ts

. In ad di ti on , th e di st ric t co ur t in st ru ct ed th e jury no t to
sp ecu la te ab ou t th e pr ev io us pr ojec ts an d to de ci de th e cas e so le ly on th e la w an d th e

-5

-ev id en ce in th is tri al

. In li g h t o f t h e in st ru ct io n, th e few in st an ces whe re MH

Met ro po li ta n al lu de d to an ot he r pr ojec t do no t affe ct W ei tz ’s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s. The di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y ex erci se d it s di sc ret io n in ex cl ud in g th e ev id en ce o f ot he r
pr ojec ts

.

C.

Acco rd in g to W ei tz , th e di st ric t co ur t erre d i n m is cal cu la ti ng th e li qu id at ed da m ag es an d c om

pl et io n c os ts

.

W ei tz a s s e r t s th at th e li qu id at ed da m ag es cl au se is a pe na lt y

. The
in te rp ret at io n of a co nt ract is a qu es ti on of la w, rev ie wed de no vo

. Si m eo ne v. Fi rs t Ba nk N.A. , 97 1 F .2d 10 3 (8t h Cir. 19 92 ). Here, the li qu id at ed da m ag es cl au se was

a reas on ab le fo reca st of de la y da m ag es — as th e pa rti es ag reed at th e t i me o f

co nt ract in g — an d is th us en fo rcea bl e. Se e Diff le y v. Ro ya l Pap er s, In c. , 94 8 S.W .2d
24 4, 24 6 (Mo

. App

. 19 97 ); In fo r m a t i o n Sys

. & Netw or ks Co rp . v. Ci ty of Ka ns as Ci ty , 14 7 F .3d 71 1, 7 14 (8t h C ir. 1 99 8) (ap pl y in g M is so ur i l aw).

W ei tz arg ue s th a t t he li qu id at ed da m ag es are ov ers ta te d be cau se th ey were

m eas ur ed ba se d on th e wro ng nu m be r of bu il di ng s. The di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y ru le d th at th e pa rti es ’ ag reem en t is un cl ear ab ou t ho w m an y bu il di ng s sh ou ld be us ed

. Bec au se of th is am

bi gu it y , th e is su e was pr op erl y su bm it te d to th e jury, an d th is co ur t wil l no t ov ert ur n th ei r reas on ed ve rd ic t. Se e Gra ha m v. Goo dm an , 85 0 S.W .2d 35 1,
35 4 (Mo

. ba nc 19 93 ) (“ The tri al co ur t m us t th en de te rm in e fro m th e ev id en ce whe th er th e su rro un di ng ci rcu m st an ces are su ch th at a fact i s s ue ex is ts fo r th e jury to

res ol ve .”); Fi tc h v. Dok e , 53 2 F.2 d 11 5, 11 7 (8 th Ci r. 19 76 ) (“ W he re, howe ve r, th e

co nt ract is am

bi gu ou s, th e m ean in g of it s te rm s is to be de te rm in ed by th e jury in th e li gh t of th e ev id en ce of th e su rro un di ng ci rcu m st an ces an d th e pr act ic al co ns tru ct io n of th e p art ie s.”)

. See ge ne ra ll y Br ow ni ng , 1 39 F.3d at 6 34 (“ App el la te rev ie w of a jury verd ic t i s ex tre m el y

de fere nt ia l” ).

-6

-W ei tz se ek s to ap pl y a Mi ss ou ri Su pr em e Co ur t de ci si o n li m it in g li qu id at ed

da m ag es fo r co ns tru ct io n de la y to th e ti m e be fo re th e own er rem ov es th e co nt ract or fro m th e p ro ject. Mo or e v. Bo ar d of Reg ent s , 1 15 S.W . 6 , 1 2- 13 (Mo . 19 08 ). The fact s in Moo re were di ffer en t fro m th os e he re: th ere, th e pr ojec t was no t y et la te whe n th e own er te rm in at ed th e co nt ract

. Id

. at 12 -1 3. Mo re im

po rta nt ly, if face d wit h th is

cas e, th e Mi ss ou ri Su pr em e Co ur t wou ld no t fo ll ow Moo re

. Se e Gil st ra p v. Am tr ak
, 99 8 F.2 d 55 9, 56 1 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ) (“ Our ta sk is fai rly si m pl e: if we fin d cl ear

e v i d e n c e th at th e [s ta te ] Su pr em e Co ur t wou ld no t up ho ld [th e pr io r de ci si on ], we sh al l no t ap pl y it to th is cas e”). Moo re rel ie d o n a New Yo rk cas e fo r th e pr in ci pl e th at li qu id at ed da m ag es are no t th e co rrec t m eas ur e of da m ag es whe n th e co nt ract or do es no t co m

pl et e th e pr ojec t. Gal

la gh er v. Ba ir d
, 66 N.Y.S. 75 9, 76 3 (Ap p. Div

. 19 00 )

. Gal la gh er act ua ll y st an ds fo r th e pr op os it io n th at th e co st to co m pl et e is a be tt er m eas ur e of da m ag es whe n a co nt ract or ab an do ns th e pr ojec t be fo re th e

co nt ract ed co m

pl et io n d at e. Id

. at 76 2- 63 (“ The re was no co m pl et io n o r at te m

pt to

co m pl et e, bu t an ut te r ab an do nme nt , a nd su ch [li qu id at ed da m ag es ] cl au se was no t in te nd ed to co ve r su ch a cas e, no r was pr ov is io n m ad e in th e co nt ract fo r su ch a

co nt in ge nc y .”). Tha t co nc lu si on do es no t res ol ve th e c a l c u la ti on of li qu id at ed 4
da m ag es in th is cas e whe re th e pr ojec t is la te whe n th e own er te rm in at es th e co nt ract

.

W ei tz al so in vo ke s a Mi ss ou ri in te rm ed ia te ap pe ll at e cas e th at ack no wled ge s th e di vi de d aut ho rit ie s, bu t fol lo ws Moo re

. Twin Ri ver Co ns t. Co

. v. Publ ic Wa te r Dis t. No. 6
, 65 3 S.W .2d 68 2, 69 3- 94 (Mo

. App

. 19 83 ). In te rm ed ia te co ur t de ci si on s, ho wev er, are no t di sp os it iv e as to ho w a st at e’s hi gh es t co ur t wou ld res ol ve a m at te r.

At an y rat e, ot he r cas es in New Yor k al lo w li qu id at ed da m ag es ag ai ns t a 4

co nt ract or who ab an do ns a pr ojec t. Se e ge ne ra ll y Ja y M. Zit te r, Ann ot at io n, Li ab il it y of Co nt ra c t or wh o Aba nd on s Bui ld in g Pro

je ct Befo re Co mpl et io n fo r Li qu id at ed Dama ge s fo r Dela

y , 15 A.L.R. 5t h 37 6, §§ 4- 5 (1 99 3) (co m pi li ng two co nt rary li ne s of New Yor k cas es ab ou t whe th er th e ab an do ni ng co nt ract or c a n or can no t be he ld li ab le fo r li qu id at ed da m ag es fo r pe rio d of t i me r eas on ab ly ne ces sa ry to co m pl et e pr ojec t).

-7

-E.g.
, Bo

ga n v. G e n e r a l M

o to rs Co rp . , 50 0 F.3 d 82 8, 83 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ); cf

. Si x Co m pa ni es of Ca li

fo rn ia v. Jo in t Hig hwa

y Dis t. No. 13
, 31 1 U.S. 18 0, 18 8 (19 40 ) (in st ru ct in g fe d e r a l a pp el la te co ur ts to fo ll ow in te rm ed ia te st at e ap pe ll at e co ur t de c i s i o n s whe n “ th ere is no co nv in ci ng ev id en ce th at th e la w of th e St at e is

ot he rwis e.”); Wa sh in gt on v. Co unt ry wi de Ho m e Loa ns

, In c. , 20 11 W L 39 62 83 1, *3 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (n ot in g in te rm ed ia te a p p e l l a t e co ur t de ci si on s m us t be fo ll owe d if th ey are t he be st ev id en ce of th e la w). In th e ab se nc e of gu id an ce fro m th e hi gh es t
st at e co ur t (o r a st a t u t e o n p o in t), th e fed eral co ur t’s ta sk is to pr ed ic t ho w th e Mi ss ou ri Su pr em e Co ur t w o u l d ru le if co nf ro nt ed wit h th e is su e to da y

. E.g.
, Penns yl va ni a Nat ’l M

u t

. C a s . In s. Co

. v. Ci ty of Pine Bl uff
, 35 4 F.3 d 94 5, 95 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ); Ma sc hk a v. Genui ne Par ts Co

. , 12 2 F.3 d 56 6, 57 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 ). If th e Mi ss ou ri Su pr em e Co ur t were to ad d r e ss th e is su e to da y , it wou ld al lo w li qu id at ed da m ag es fo r a reas on ab le ti m e aft er ab an d o n men t by th e co nt ract or or
te rm in at io n by th e own er. Se e Gil st ra p , 99 8 F.2 d at 56 2 (“ ‘[I] n an ap pr op ria te cas e,

a fed eral co ur t mu s t n ot co ns id er it se lf bo un d by ol d st at e co ur t de ci si on s if it is

co nv in ced by ot he r pe rs ua si ve da ta th at th e hi gh es t co ur t of th e st at e wou ld [n ow] de ci de ot he rwis e.” (al te rat io n in or i g i n a l) (ci ta ti on an d in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s

om it te d) ).

W ei tz co nt en ds th at th e co nt ract pr ecl ud ed MH Met ro po li ta n fro m cl ai m in g
cert ai n dam ag es as pa rt o f th e co m pl et io n cos ts

. “ W he n a br each [in a co ns tru ct io n

co nt ract ] re s u l t s fro m a co m bi na ti on of de fect iv e co ns tru ct io n an d a fai lu re to

co m pl et e th e wor k, th e own ers ’ da m ag es are cal cu la te d us in g th e reas on ab le co st of

reco ns tru ct io n, rep ai r, a nd co m pl et io n in acco rd an ce wit h th e co nt ract .” Er ner y v. Fr eem an , 84 S.W .3d 52 9, 53 6 (Mo

. App

. 20 02 ); se e al so In fo rm at io n Sys te m s , 14 7 F.3 d at 71 3 (ap pl y in g Mi ss ou ri la w). W ei tz wou ld cat eg or iz e so m e of MH
Met ro po li ta n’s da m ag es as “ de la y da m ag es ” an d “ th eft an d pr op ert y da m ag es ” th at th e co nt ract ba rs MH Met ro po li ta n fro m reco ve rin g. MH Met ro po li ta n res po nd s th at th e da m ag es are in fact co st s to co m pl et e in cu rred whe n it be cam e th e co nt ract or on th e pr ojec t. The di st ric t co ur t c o rrec tl y de ci de d th at th es e are is su es of fact fo r th e

-8

-jury. The jury reject ed W ei tz ’s da m ag es arg um en ts , an d th is co ur t wil l no t ov ert ur n

it s reas on ed ve rd ic t. S e e B r o w n i ng , 13 9 F.3 d at 63 4 (“ App el la te rev ie w of a jury

ve rd ic t i s ex tre m el y

de fere nt ia l” ).

D.

W ei tz cla im s t ha t t he di st ric t co ur t s ho ul d h av e en te red jud gm en t as a m at te r of law fo r it on th e b reac h- of -co nt ract cla im s ag ai ns t Arro whe ad

.

Thi s co ur t rev ie ws de no vo a de ni al of a m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w

an d gr an ts it if “ a pa rty ha s be en fu ll y he ard on an is su e an d th ere is no le ga ll y

su ffi ci en t ev id en ti ary ba si s fo r a reas on ab le jury to fin d fo r th at pa rty on th at is su e.”
Cha lfa nt , 47 5 F.3 d at 98 8; Fed. R. Civ

. P. 50 (a )(1 )

. Thi s co ur t m ak es al l reas on ab le
in fere nc es in fav or of th e no nm ov in g pa rty an d vi ews th e fact s m os t fav or ab ly to th at
pa rty. Cha lfa nt , 47 5 F .3d at 9 88

.

W ei tz la rg el y rear gu es it s ve rs io n of th e fact s. On each po in t, th ere was

su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to reject W ei tz ’s po si ti on

. The jury was en t i t l e d t o cred it
Arro whe ad ’s ev id en ce th at W ei tz co m m it te d th e fir s t mat e ria l br each an d di d no t

su bs ta nt ia ll y pe rfo rm it s ag reem en t wit h Arro whe ad
, ex cu si ng Arro w he ad fro m
pe rfo rm an ce. Afte r rece iv in g th e ev id en ce, th e jury ch os e — as it was en ti tl ed to do

— to reject W ei tz ’s ev id en ce. Thi s co ur t fin ds a le ga ll y su ffi ci en t ev id en ti ary ba si s fo r th at ch oi ce. Se e 8t h Cir . R. 47 B

.

E.

W ei tz as se rts th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in refu si ng to en te r a de fau lt jud gm en t
ag ai n s t C o n c o r d e whe n it fai le d to ap pe ar at tri al
, or in th e al te rn at iv e, refu si ng to
gr an t W ei tz jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w on it s clai m s aga in st Co nc or de

. Thi s cou rt

-9

-rev ie ws de ci si on s on de fau lt jud gm en ts fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. Fo rs yt he v. Ha le s , 25 5 F .3d 48 7, 4 90 (8t h C ir. 2 00 1)

.

Co nc or de was rep res en te d by co un se l fo r m uc h of t h e l i t i g at io n — fil in g an

an swe r, co m

pl y in g with al l pr et ria l or de rs , an d res po nd in g to al l di sc ov ery req ue st s

an d di sp os it iv e m ot io ns

. By th es e act s, pa rti cu la rly by fil in g an an swe r, Co nc or de di d de fen d, an d th e di st ric t co ur t was no t req ui red to en te r a de fau lt jud gm en t ag ai ns t it

. Se e Unit ed St at es v. Ha rr e , 98 3 F.2 d 12 8, 13 0 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ) (“ Bec au se [th e pa rty] fil ed an an swe r

. . . h e i nd ic at ed a de si re to de fen d ag ai ns t th e act io n.” ); cf

. Ack ra Dir ect Ma rk et

in g Co rp . v. Fi ng er hut Co rp . , 86 F.3 d 85 2, 85 7 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ) (s ta ti ng it is wit hi n th e di st ric t co ur t’s d i s c r e t i o n to en te r de fau lt jud gm en t ev en aft er fil in g of an swe r if pa rty’ s la te r co nd uc t in cl ud es ‘w il lfu l vi ol at io ns of co ur t ru le s,

co nt um aci ou s co nd uc t, or in te nt io na l de la y s.’ ( ci ta ti on om it te d) ). Abo ut two an d a ha lf week s befo re tria l, Con co rd e’s at to rn ey s m ov ed to wit hd raw; th e co ur t gran te d th e m ot io n on Ja nu ary 13
, 20 10

. On th e m or ni ng of Ja nu ary 25
, whe n tri al be ga n, Co nc or de was no t rep res en te d by co un se l. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed W ei tz ’s m ot io n fo r a de fau lt jud gm en t, an d W ei tz — un op po se d — su bm it te d it s cl ai m s ag ai ns t Co nc or de to th e jury. Ch oo si ng no t t o a pp ear fo r tri al — es pe ci al ly aft er de feat in g

m ot io ns to di sm is s a co un te rcl ai m — do es no t ne ces sa ril y co ns ti tu te th e “ w i ll fu l vi ol at io n” of co ur t ru le s th at pl aces a de fen da nt in de fau lt

. S e e H a r r e , 98 3 F.2 d at 13 0. (Defa ul t jud gm en t fo r fai lu re to de fen d is ap pr op ria te whe n th e pa rty's co nd uc t in cl ud es “ wil lfu l vi ol at io ns of co ur t ru le s, co n t u mac i o us co nd uc t, or in te nt io na l de la y s.”)

. The jury rejec te d W ei tz ’s c la im s, an d th e di st ric t c o ur t pr op erl y al lo wed th at de ci si on to st an d. Cf

. Pfan ens te il Ar chi te ct

s, In c. v. Cho ut

ea u Petr ol

eum Co

. , 97 8 F.2 d 43 0, 43 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 92 ) (“ W he n th ere are m ul ti pl e de fen da nt s who m ay be joi nt ly and sev eral ly liab le fo r da m ag es al le ge d by pla in ti ff, an d s om e b ut les s t ha n al l o f t h o s e d e f

e nd an ts de fau lt , t he be tt er pr act ic e is fo r th e di st ric t co ur t to st ay it s de te rm in at io n of da m ag es ag ai ns t th e de fau l t e r s u n ti l pl ai nt iff 's cl ai m ag ai ns t th e

no nd efau lt ers is res ol ve d.

. . . to av oi d th e pr ob le m s of d e a l i n g wit h in co ns is te nt da m ag e d et erm in at io ns

. . . .”)

-1 0-As th e di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d, it wou ld be un jus t to gr an t jud gm en t to W ei tz aft er t he jury reject ed it s co nt en ti on s.

F.

W ei tz co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ha ve ru le d th at Mac Ken zi e Hou se — whic h di d no t sig n th e co nt ract — cou ld be vi cari ou sl y li ab le fo r th e act s o f MH
Met ro po li ta n. Bec au se th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y fo un d ag ai ns t W ei tz on al l is su es , th ere i s n o re as on to co ns id er t he is su e o f vi cari ou s l ia bi li ty.

** ** ** *

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 1-