Opinion ID: 514370
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Applied Coatings v. Omnimax

Text: 2 A careful reading of the appellant's pro se brief reveals two grounds of appeal. He challenges facts found by the District Court on his motion for a preliminary injunction and by the jury in its trial of the merits; and he appeals from the District Court's refusal to grant him leave to file a second amended complaint. 3 In a Memorandum and Opinion dated February 12, 1985, in order to rule on Beale's motion for an injunction, the District Court (Kinneary, J.) reviewed the complete history of the litigants' contractual relationship with painstaking care. We have reviewed the record, and conclude that these findings of fact are reasonable and amply supported by the record. Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a) we may disturb these findings only if they are clearly erroneous. This appeal falls far short of that standard. 4 Neither are the facts as found by the jury on special interrogatories subject to interference by this Court. Appellant did not seek review of the jury verdict by the two means provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure--motions for a directed verdict or for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a), (b). Our role in reviewing an appeal from jury fact-finding absent a ruling on one of these motions must be very limited. As we find nothing to suggest either a plain error amounting to a miscarriage of justice in the findings of the jury in this matter or an abuse of the trial judge's discretion, we reject this challenge. Little v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co., 426 F.2d 509, 511 (5th Cir.1970); Southern Railway Co. v. Miller, 285 F.2d 202, 206 (6th Cir.1960); 5A J. Moore & J.D. Lucas, Moore's Federal Practice, Sec. 50-12, p. 50-91 (2d ed. 1988). 5 Beale's motion for leave to amend his complaint was subject to the District Court's sound discretion. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15. As the District Court observed in its order denying the motion, filed August 5, 1987, Beale proposed to amend his complaint at an extremely late stage in the litigation process. It is well within a trial court's discretion to determine that one party's late motion to amend which would substantially alter the posture of the case may prejudice another party, so that granting the motion would not serve the purpose of justice. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). A denial on such grounds is no abuse of discretion. 6