Opinion ID: 280810
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: seeburg's cross-appeal

Text: 42 The cross-appeal by Seeburg filed July 21, 1966, did not appeal from any matter which Seeburg is now contesting in this appeal. 5 There is no reference to the failure to conditionally rule on the motion for a new trial. 43 This Circuit in Gordon Mailloux Enterprises, Inc. v. Firemen's Insurance Company, 366 F.2d 740 at 741-742 (1966), in a similar situation where there had been no conditional ruling on the motion for new trial, and where a cross-appeal had not been taken, held that the trial court must, on remand, act upon the undisposed motion. Harp v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 336 F.2d 255 (9 Cir.1964) was a case where there was no cross-appeal. The court cited Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Duncan, 311 U.S. 243-254, 61 S.Ct. 189, 195, 85 L.Ed. 147, wherein the Supreme Court stated: We see no reason why the appellee may not and should not, cross-assign error in the appellant's appeal, to rulings of law at the trial. See also Moist Cold Refrigerator Co., Inc. v. Lou Johnson Co., Inc., 249 F.2d 246 (9 Cir.1957); and the note of the Advisory Committee on the Rules following Rule 50, Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. F.R.C.P., presently in pocket part, which note discussed the amendments to Rule 50, effective July 1, 1963. We hold that no notice of cross-appeal was necessary for Seeburg. 44
45 Seeburg has in its brief, a section, The Alternate Cross-Appeal as to Damages, which states that it moved for a new trial in two aspects, one being application for new trial on its affirmative claim for relief, (this ground has been abandoned), and the other being an application for a new trial as to damages in the alternative if a motion for judgment N.O.V. was not granted. The court below granted the motion for judgment N.O.V.    It did nothing one way or the other with defendant's motion for new trial as to damages on the counter-claim. 46 The motion for new trial or for judgment N.O.V. read as follows: 47  Plaintiffs move for new trial in the cause or in the alternative for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. In connection with the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, plaintiffs ask that the judgment for defendants be set aside and that the judgment be given to the plaintiffs in the amount of $40,000.00, plus fees and costs as prayed for in this record. 48  This motion in both its alternative aspects is supported by the brief in the motion for new trial filed herewith   . [Emphasis added] 49 The second sentence referring to judgment notwithstanding the verdict as to plaintiff's claim for $40,000.00, refers to a contention which has been expressly abandoned by Seeburg in this appeal. The first sentence however is broad enough to support its motion for a judgment N.O.V. as to the $129,317.00, verdict in favor of Minthorne, being the motion which the court granted. As to the motion for a new trial, we then have left the bare statement, Plaintiffs move for a new trial in the case    this motion    is supported by the brief   . 50 If we consider the brief as part of the motion, and this is certainly extending every consideration to Seeburg, then we find grounds for the motion for new trial on the issue of damages unruled on in the trial court. See Robinson v. Isbrandtsen Co., 203 F.2d 514, 516 (2 Cir. 1953). 51 In the fourth point in the brief, the contention is that the verdict is so completely against the weight of the evidence that it should not be allowed to stand, and the evidence is extensively discussed. 52 We hold that there is a motion for new trial on the issue of damages, not yet ruled on by the trial court.
53 Throughout its briefs here, Seeburg contends that the motion, unruled on by the trial court, is one for a new trial as to damages. No other ground has been briefed in this court. Other matters were discussed in the trial court brief in support of the motion for new trial, referred to above. One is a discussion of the verdict on the counter-claim, and whether or not the particular clause was a condition precedent or a covenant. The argument goes entirely to the question of law as to whether there was a promise which would support the verdict. We have ruled on this counter-claim. 54 The second point concerns only Seeburg's failure to recover on its claim, now abandoned on this appeal. 55 The third point directs itself to alleged error in the verdict against Seeburg on its claim now abandoned in this appeal. In the third point, it is possible that Seeburg is attacking the Minthorne verdict, but the presentation is by no means clear. 6 56 We conclude: (1) that the question of liability was entirely one of law on an interpretation of the contract, and since we have found that the contract contains a promise, and since the jury verdict, which we reinstate, establishes liability of Seeburg to Minthorne on the counter-claim, this need not again be litigated in the trial court; (2) that a motion for new trial, on the question of damages only, is pending and should be ruled on by the trial court. 57 The question of damages was a question of fact for the jury, but on a motion for new trial on the question of damages, this Circuit has held that the trial judge is not limited to questions of law but may grant a new trial when he is of the opinion the verdict is against the weight of evidence. Southern Pacific Co. v. Guthrie, 186 F.2d 926, 932 (9 Cir.1951; Siebrand v. Gossnell, 234 F.2d 81, 94 (9 Cir.1956). Here we have affirmed as to liability. Thus, on hearing the motion for new trial, the court may grant the motion and order a new trial on damages or deny the motion and reinstate the judgment in favor of Minthorne and against Seeburg, or grant a remittitur with the alternative of a new trial if the remittitur is not complied with. 58 The judgment is reversed and remanded for proceedings pursuant to this opinion.