Opinion ID: 3023718
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: standard of review

Text: Generally, we review jury instructions for abuse of discretion. United States v. McLaughlin, 386 F.3d 547, 551-52 (3d Cir. 2004). However, our review is plenary when the issue 9 The FLSA claim was dismissed on an unopposed Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 motion at the close of Armstrong’s case. 10 Prior to jury selection in the second trial, the Court reaffirmed its dismissal of the FLSA claim because it had been dismissed prior to jury submission at the first trial. 11 We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 11 is whether the instructions misstated the law. Id. at 552. We must consider “whether the charge, ‘taken as a whole, properly apprise[d] the jury of the issues and the applicable law.’” Smith v. Borough of Wilkinsburg, 147 F.3d 272, 275 (3d Cir. 1998) (quoting Limbach Co. v. Sheet Metal Workers Int’l Ass’n, 949 F.2d 1241, 1259 n.15 (3d Cir. 1991)). Harmless errors in parts of a jury charge that do not prejudice the complaining party are not sufficient grounds on which to vacate a judgment and order a new trial. Watson v. S.E. Penn. Transp. Auth., 207 F.3d 207, 221-22 (3d Cir. 2000). We review a Court’s formulation of jury interrogatories for abuse of discretion. Armstrong v. Dwyer, 155 F.3d 211, 214 (3d Cir. 1998). “The only limitation [on this discretion] is that the questions asked of the jury be adequate to determine the factual issues essential to the judgment.” Id. at 216 (citations omitted). We also review for abuse of discretion a Court’s determination of issues and claims to be re-tried following the grant of a new trial. Vizzini v. Ford Motor Co., 569 F.2d 754, 760 (3d Cir. 1977).