Opinion ID: 1530016
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The amended complaint and the trial.

Text: Following the dismissal of the first three counts of her initial complaint, Ms. Thompsen filed an amended complaint containing only two claims: 1. conversion; and 2. breach of quasi-contract. The Times filed a motion for summary judgment, again arguing, inter alia, that Ms. Thompsen's claims were barred by the three-year statute of limitations. In an order entered on January 13, 2000, the second motions judge (who was also the trial judge) rejected this contention as contrary to the law of the case, and she reaffirmed that the conversion and quasi-contract claims did not ripen until the defendant allegedly used the plaintiff's proposal by publishing the family supplement in June 1997. The case proceeded to trial in May 2000. Ms. Thompsen testified generally, though with some variation, [3] in accordance with the allegations of her complaint but added some details. Ms. Thompsen stated that Mr. Mahr wanted to meet with her to discuss this new supplement, which was your idea, and that the people at the Times were actually working on it already. Thus, according to Ms. Thompsen, the Times' refusal to pay her came after the Times had began to use the fruits of her labor. As noted by the trial judge in her written order denying the Times' post-trial motion for JMOL, Ms. Thompsen also testified that her proposal conferred a benefit on the Times as soon as she presented it. The trial judge dismissed the conversion claim at the close of the plaintiff's case. At various stages of the trial, counsel for the Times reiterated his position that the unjust enrichment claim was time-barred, but the judge disagreed, and she allowed that claim to go to the jury. The jury returned a verdict in Ms. Thompsen's favor in the amount of $100,000. On March 16, 2004, the trial judge denied the Times' post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new trial. This appeal followed.