NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 08a0085n.06 F iled: Janu ary 29, 2008 No. 06-6586 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
EL VI S E. PENDL ETON, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. OVER THE TO P, L .L .C., De fe nd a nt- Ap pe lla

nt. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE MI DDL E DI STRI CT OF TEN NESSEE

B e fo re : SU HR HE I

NR I CH , SU TT ON , a

nd GR I F F I N, Cir c uit

Judg e s. SUTTON, Circuit J udg e. Over the Top challeng es the district c ourt’s denial of its post-trial motions claiming that t h e ev i d en ce does not support the jury ’s ver dict and dama g es aw ard of $1 85 ,0 00 a ri sin g fr om a

ba rr oo m f ig ht. B e c a

us e the dis tr ic t c ourt did

no t e rr or oth e rw ise a

bu se its discretion in deny

ing the motions, we aff

irm.
I.
I n 2003, Elvis Pendleton and his wife visit ed Kicke rs, a nig ht club owned a nd operated by Over the T o p in Clarksville, Tennessee . After a fig ht broke out betwe en Pendleton and othe r patrons, a K icker s bouncer restra ined Pendleton and tac kled hi m t o the g round. F our or f iveNo. 06-6586

Pendleton v . Ove r the Top

- 2 - additional bouncer s joined in and, ac cording to Pendleton, beg an hitting him. P en d leton suffe red injuries in the ensuing ruckus, including a “blowout f rac ture” to “the bone unde rneath [ his] ey e.”
Pendleton fi l ed a complaint ag ainst Over the Top and its bouncer s in feder al cour t on diversity g rounds—Elvis was not from Te nnessee —all eg ing sta te law torts and se eking
c o m p e n s a t o r

y a n d p u n i t i v e d a m a g e s . A j u r y f o u n d O v e r t h e T o p ( 1 ) l i a

b l e f o r a s s a u l t , b a t t e r y,
ne g lig e nc e a nd

fa lse impr iso nme nt a

nd (2 ) n ot l ia

ble fo r e xtre me a nd

ou tr a g e ou s c on du c t. I t a lso found Pendleton had not a cted ne g lige ntly , and it awa rded him compe nsatory

damag es of $185,000. Over the Top moved for judg ment as a ma tter of law , see Fe d. R. Civ. P. 50(b) or, alternatively , for
a new trial o r a re m i t t i t u r of damag es, see Fe d. R. Civ. P . 59, claiming that the evidenc e did not support the ver dict or aw ard. Reas o n i n g that the “ve rdict ag ainst Defe ndant is supported by the evidenc e” a

nd that the “dama g es awa rded by the jury do not c lear ly exceed the maxim um amount which the jury

could re asonably

find to be compe nsatory

for the Plaintiff’s injuries,” the court de nied the mot ion s.
II.
We reviewa district cour t’s denial of a Rule 50(b) motion de novo. Se e Sm ith v . Le gg e tt W ire Co. , 2 20 F .3 d 752 , 758 (6 th Cir . 200 0)
. Whe n, in a div e rs ity a c tio n, “ a Rul e 50 (b ) m oti on

is premised on a

challeng e to t h e s u fficie ncy of the e vidence , we a

pply the standar d of re view
e mpl oy e d b y

the c ourt s o f t

he state wh os e su

bs tan ti ve la

w c on tr ols the a c tio n, Te nn e sse e in t his instance.” Shanklin v. N

orfolk S. Ry. Co. , 369 F.3d 978, 993 (6th Cir. 2004)
. Under Tenne ssee law ,No. 06-6586

Pendleton v . Ove r the Top

- 3 - judgme nt as a matter

of law is prope r only

if, af t er “t ak[ ing] the strong est leg itimate view of the evidenc e in favor of the pla intiff, indulging in all rea sonable infe renc es in his favor, a nd disreg arding any evidenc e to the contr ary ,” the c ourt conclude s that “re asonable minds c ould not diff er a s to the conclusion to be draw n from the e vidence .” Id. (interna l quotation marks omitted); see also Eaton

v . M c Lai n , 891 S.W .2d 587, 590 (Tenn. 1 9 9 4 ). W e re view a district c ourt’s denia l of a Rule 59 motion for a new

trial or a r emittitur of damag es for abuse of discretion. Se e Cha nd

le r v . S pe c ial ty Tires of Am., Inc. , 283 F .3 d 818 , 8 24 (6 th C ir . 2 00 2) ; Roush v. KFC Nat’l Mgmt. Co. , 10 F.3d 392, 397 (6th Cir. 1993). A t rial cour t should deny

a motion for a ne w trial “if the verdic t is one which could re asonably

have be en re ache d,” United States v. L.E. CookeCo. , 991 F.2d 336, 343 (6th Cir. 1993), and should li kewise deny a motion for re mitti tur unless the jury awa rd “c lear ly

exceeds the amount which . . . wa s the maxi mum that a jury could rea sonably find to be compe nsatory

for the plaintiff’s loss,” Ro us h , 10 F.3d at 397 (internal quotation mar ks and empha sis omit ted).
A re asonable jury

could fa irly conclude that Pendleton did not act neg lige ntly and that the
e vid e nc e su

pp or te d the ve rd ic t. Pe nd le ton a nd his wi fe , Sa ra , r e c a lle d th e e ve nin g thi s w a y a t tr ia l. As Pendleton and Sara

wer e “movi n g o ff t h e d ance floor” f ollowing a

minor skirmish with ot her patrons, a K icker s bouncer g rabbe d Pendleton fr o m b eh i n d , and the two trippe d to the g round. Pendleton was “ kind of dazed” f rom the fa ll, and, as h e tried to g et up, four or five a dditional b o u n ce rs en circ led him and “be g an to hit him.” Pendleton never threw a punch, but was the
r e c ip ie n t o f ma

n y a n d u lt im a te ly w a s “ b e a t
. . . to a p u lp s o th a t h e w a s li k e a noodle” when the bouncer s “drug him down the stairs” a nd “laid him out on the conc rete ” outside the c lub. DoctorsNo. 06-6586

Pendleton v . Ove r the Top

- 4 - trea ted Pendleton for a

“lac eration to his fac e” a nd a “blown out .
. . orbital ey e socke t.” A patr on
corr oborate d some of this testimony . He tes t i fi ed h e neve r saw Pendle ton “striking a ny blows or any thing like that” and that the bounc ers’ behavior “just looked like it was in excess . . . like somebody

was g etting be at up.”
T h e b o u n c e r s to ld

a d if f e r e n t s to r y . A f te r a p a tr o n r e p o rte d

to a b o u n c e r th a t “ Pe ndleton [had] g rabbe d somebody ’s re ar e nd on the danc e floor,” the bounce r appr oache d P en d l et o n , and Pendleton respon d ed by

throwing a bee r bottle at the bounc er. A s that bouncer went to g et assistance , another

bouncer saw Pendleton fig hting with a patron and tac kled h i m t o the g round. Four or five a dditional bouncers joined in to help restra in Pendle ton, a nd Pendleton was told that he could g et up as soon as he calmed down. After Pendleton appea red to c alm down and the bounc ers helped him off the ground, he ag ain started “ swing ing w ildy ” with his fists and hit at least one of the bouncer s. The bounce rs ag ain re strained him and, a fter rolling him ove r, “re alized he had be en cut.” Once they had calmed P endleton down ag ain, the bounce rs “c arr ied him out of the club,” “ appl[ied] first aid to him” and c alled for the police and an ambulance
. The bounc ers discla imed ever hitting or kicking Pendleton.
I n the fac e of these conflicting acc ounts, it fell to the jury to de termine who was telling the truth. As the verdict sug g ests, the j ury believed Pendleton’s testimony , and Ove r the Top ha s g iven us no convincing rea son to disrupt the jury ’s ver dict or the district cour t’s denial of its post-trial motions. I ndeed, the company ’s arg ument, if y ou can call it that, simpl y repla y s favor able e vidence that the jury

hear d and appa

rently discounted or outrig ht rejec ted—pay ing no r eg ard to the infe renc esNo. 06-6586

Pendleton v . Ove r the Top

- 5 - a nd imp lic a tio ns we mus t ma ke a t th is s ta g e of the c a se . I t argue s, fo r e xamp le , th a t Pe nd le ton mus t have be e n n e g lig e nt b e c a

us e so me wi tne sse s “ sw or e , und e r oa th, ” that Pe nd le ton thr e w b e e r b ott le s, swung his fists and continued to fig ht when aske d to stop. But Pendleton and S ara testified to the
c on tr a ry , a

nd a pa tr on te sti fi e d he ne ve r s a w Pe nd le ton thr ow a pu nc h. Th e c omp a ny

lik e wi se c la ims that Pendleton was drunk a nd out of control. B ut Pendl et o n , who admit ted that he ha d been drinking , that his blood alcohol level wa s twice the le g al l imit i n Tenne ssee a nd that marijuana

was p r e s e n t in h is s y s te m, te s ti f ie d th a t h e “ w a s n ’ t d r

u n k ” a n d th a t h e “ f

e lt p e r f e c tl y f in e ” prior to the incident. Sara

also testified that Pendleton wa s “n o t ac t ing dr unk” and tha

t, while Pendleton was “[m] ay be a little re sistive” to g etting remove d from the club, “ther e wa s no ty pe of r etaliation . . . on his p[art ].” On thi s re c or d, we c a nn ot say that the jur

y ’s ve rd ic t w a s u nr e a so na ble . A nd fo r t he same
re as o n , we have no basis for reduc ing the jury

awa rd due to Pendleton’s a lleg ed, but not found, neg lige nce.
Over the Top insists that the dist rict cour t erre d beca

us e “a new tria l must be gr anted wh e ne ve r t

he tr ia l c ourt , a c tin g a s th e thi rt e e nth jur or , d isa g rees wi th a

jur y ’s c omp a ra

tiv e fa ult allocation.” Jones v. Idle s , 114 S.W .3d 911, 915 (Tenn. 2003). But in making this arg ument, the
c o m p a n y o v e r l o o k s t h e s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w . A l t h o u g h a “ f e d e r a l c o u rt e xe r c i s i n g its div e rs ity jurisdiction applies the standar d for a dir e c te d v e rd ic t us e d b y

the c ourt s of the state wh os e substantive law g overns the a ction,” “this circuit follows fede ral, not Tenne ssee, law on the standar d for g ranting a ne w tr ial in a div e rs ity c a se . T e nn e sse e c ourt s a llo w the tr ia l j udg e to s it a s a ‘t h i rt e e n t h j u r o r ’ w h e n p a s s i n g u p o n a m o t i o n f

o r a n e w t r i a l
. F e d e r a l d i v e r s i t y c o u rt s s i t t i ng inNo. 06-6586

Pendleton v . Ove r the Top

- 6 - Tenne ssee do not a

pply this standa

rd, but instead apply

the fe dera l standard.” Ar ms v . S tat e Fa rm Fire & Cas. Co. , 731 F.2d 1245, 1248 & n.2 (6th Cir. 1984) (e mphases adde d).
When vie wed throug h the prism of the corr ect standard, Over the Top’s argument fails. The company has not shown that the district cour t abused its discr etion in leaving the jury ’s ver dict and
awa rd undisturbed. While we can understand why Over the Top would have liked the district court judge to sit as a thirteenth juror, tha t was not the judg e’s r ole. Nor is it ours.
III
. For these re asons, we a ffirm.