Opinion ID: 3025514
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Damages for Breach of Right of First Refusal

Text: Norwest argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient as a matter of law for the jury to find that Norwest suffered any loss because the supposedly lost value to Gleason was based on lost profits that were not reasonably certain to materialize. For a party to challenge on appeal the sufficiency of the evidence to support a jury’s finding, that party must have first made an appropriate post-verdict motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b). Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 126 S. Ct. 980, 989 (2006); Charles Jacquin et Cie, Inc. v. Destileria Serralles, Inc., 921 F.2d 467, 475 (3d Cir. 1990). Norwest filed no such post-verdict motion, and consequently, we will not consider its challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. In its reply brief, Norwest seeks to avoid the consequences of its failure to file an appropriate motion by arguing that, in fact, it is not challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. Rather, Norwest argues, it is challenging the admissibility of the evidence of loss on which the jury relied. This argument is belied by Norwest’s opening brief, which contains no direct challenge to the admissibility of that evidence and focuses entirely on the lack of an evidentiary basis to support the jury’s finding. Although Norwest is entitled to use its reply brief to clarify the issues before us, it may not add new issues for consideration. Failure by a party to identify an issue in its opening brief constitutes waiver of that issue on appeal. In re Pressman-Gutman Co., Inc., 459 F.3d 383, 402 (3d Cir. 2006). Norwest is confined to the sufficiency challenge raised in its opening brief, and it is precluded from making this challenge due to its failure to file a Rule 50(b) motion. 8