Opinion ID: 147563
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Vidal Rodriguez

Text: 7 Next, Cordell contends that, during closing argument, Pacific made misrepresentations that Cordell failed to mention Rodriguez as a potential arson suspect until well into the investigation. Cordell claims, however, that he told George Clark, Pacific’s investigator, about Rodriguez right after his home burnt down and that his counsel had multiple conversations about Rodriguez with Pacific during discovery. This argument is unpersuasive. Even if Cordell’s attorneys did mention Rodriguez multiple times during discovery, Cordell has failed to show how this would make Pacific’s statements a misrepresentation. Pacific’s statement merely claimed that Cordell did not mention Rodriguez as a suspect during its earlier investigation. Thus, even assuming that Cordell did tell others about Rodriguez at the onset of the investigation, which he has not substantiated, this did not necessarily indicate that Pacific’s statement during closing argument was false. 2. Cordell’s Financial Obligations and the Destruction of the Home Cordell also argues that, during its closing argument, Pacific made the following misrepresentations: that his wife, Alyssa, obtained financing for their home; that the Cordells were unable to meet their financial obligations; and that the Cordells paid someone to destroy their home. Cordell claims that letters from bank representatives, which allegedly display his financial stability, illustrate that 8 Pacific’s statements were misrepresentations. These contentions are also unpersuasive. Again, Cordell has failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that Pacific’s statements in its closing argument were misrepresentations or fraudulent. Moreover, Cordell has not explained why it would be impermissible for Pacific to make an inference from the evidence that the Cordell played a role in the fire that destroyed their home. See Commercial Credit Equip. Corp. v. L & A Contracting Co., Inc., 549 F.2d 979, 981 (5th Cir. 1977) (noting that attorneys can make reasonable inferences from the evidence presented at trial in making their closing arguments). Cordell provided a letter from Washington Mutual, stating that he had a “great payment history,” and testimony from Gary Floyd, which stated that his bank had loaned Cordell money since their house was destroyed, as evidence of his financial stability. However, this does not demonstrate that Pacific’s statements were misrepresentations. At best, these statements only show that the evidence presented at trial was conflicting. Accordingly, we find no error. 3. Cordell’s Financial Documentation and the Motion to Compel Cordell argues that Pacific, during its closing argument, misrepresented that it had to file a motion to compel to obtain Cordell’s financial records. Cordell 9 claims that this was a misrepresentation because he provided numerous financial documents prior to Pacific’s filing of the motion to compel. This argument is groundless. The record explicitly shows that Pacific filed a motion to compel discovery, which the district court granted. Cordell also claims that Pacific inappropriately instructed Zandmand to present the Cordell’s financial situation in a manner favorable to Pacific. Assuming arguendo that such conduct would violate Rule 60(b)(3), Cordell has not made any specific allegations to identify the manner he believes that Zandmand misrepresented the evidence. Thus, we find no basis for relief. E. Entry of Judgment Cordell argues that Pacific misrepresented itself when it filed for an entry of judgment for its counterclaim because the counterclaim was never mentioned at trial, nor was the counterclaim presented to the jury. Although Cordell frames this argument as an allegation of misrepresentation, Cordell’s argument is actually an attempt to argue that the district court committed a legal error in granting Pacific’s motion for an entry of judgment. Because a Rule 60(b)(3) motion may not be used to challenge mistakes of law, we find that the district court committed no reversible error.