Remittitur is a legal principle that permits a trial court to order a new trial unless the plaintiff accepts a reduction of a jury award that the Court has deemed to be excessive. See Cretella v. Kuzminski, 640 F.Supp.2d 741, 756 (E.D. Va. 2009); Stamathis v. Flying J, Inc., 389 F.3d 429, 438 (4th Cir. 2004). Thus, with remittitur “the Court does not order that the damage award is reduced; instead, the court gives the plaintiff the option of accepting a reduced amount or trying the case over.”
In this instance, Plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 50(b) and, as a result, Plaintiff is procedurally barred from obtaining a post-trial judgment as a matter of law with respect to any of its claims (or part thereof) and any counter-claims filed against it.See Cretella v. Kuzminski, 640 F. Supp. 2d 741, 755 (E.D. Va. 2009) (Fourth Circuit recognizes "substantial compliance" where "both the adverse party and the court are aware that the movant continues to believe that the evidence presented does not present an issue for the jury"); Navigant Consulting, Inc. v. Wilkinson, 508 F.3d 277, 288 (5th Cir. 2007) ("technical noncompliance" with Rule 50(a) motion may be excused where the purposes of the rule are otherwise satisfied); Associated Bus. Tel. Sys. Corp. v. Greater Capital Corp., 729 F.Supp.1488, 1502 (D.N.J. 1990) ("substantial compliance"). Plaintiff also argues that the Court "may still grant a Rule 50(b) motion[,] even where no Rule 50(a) motion was filed, if there is plain error that would otherwise result in a manifest miscarriage of justice."
In this instance, Plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 50(b) and, as a result, Plaintiff is procedurally barred from obtaining a post-trial judgment as a matter of law with respect to any of its claims (or part thereof) and any counter-claims filed against it.See Cretella v. Kuzminski, 640 F. Supp. 2d 741, 755 (E.D. Va. 2009) (Fourth Circuit recognizes "substantial compliance" where "both the adverse party and the court are aware that the movant continues to believe that the evidence presented does not present an issue for the jury"); Navigant Consulting, Inc. v. Wilkinson, 508 F.3d 277, 288 (5th Cir. 2007) ("technical noncompliance" with Rule 50(a) motion may be excused where the purposes of the rule are otherwise satisfied); Associated Bus. Tel. Sys. Corp. v. Greater Capital Corp., 729 F.Supp. 1488, 1502 (D.N.J. 1990) ("substantial compliance"). Plaintiff also argues that the Court "may still grant a Rule 50(b) motion[,] even where no Rule 50(a) motion was filed, if there is plain error that would otherwise result in a manifest miscarriage of justice."
Thus, his claim fails.SeeTronfeld , 636 S.E.2d at 450 (statement that an attorney "just takes people's money"); Carwile , 82 S.E.2d at 592 (statements charging "an attorney at law with unethical or unprofessional conduct and which tend to injure or disgrace him in his profession"); Cretella v. Kuzminski , 640 F.Supp.2d 741, 747 (E.D. Va. 2009) (statement "questioning Plaintiff's ethical conduct as a practicing attorney, accusing him of the criminal act of extortion, and stating that Plaintiff had been discharged from his employment with a law firm as a result of such conduct"); cf.Perk , 485 S.E.2d at 143–44 (statement involving an attorney's work as a debt collector). Similarly, the film is not reasonably capable of suggesting that Webb is unfit to own a gun store.
In Cretella v. Kuzminski, the alleged defamatory statements included questioning Cretella's ethical conduct as a practicing attorney, accusing him of the criminal act of extortion, and stating that a law firm had fired him because of this conduct. 640 F. Supp. 2d 741, 747 (E.D. Va. 2009). In Tronfeld v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., the alleged statements said that the attorney just takes money from his clients.
Thus, the presence of a $2,500 maximum criminal penalty does not mean that the Court should automatically reduce punitive damages to that amount. SeeCretella v. Kuzminski, 640 F. Supp. 2d 741, 746-47 (E.D. Va. 2009) (granting remittitur as to punitive damages awards on four defamation claims, three of which were reduced to $5,000 (a 75% reduction), and one to $8,000 (also a 75% reduction)). That said, the fact that the jury's award of punitive damages is twenty-four times greater than the maximum criminal penalty Defendant would face for her conduct does indicate that the award is grossly excessive.
For instance, one district court in Virginia clarified that it had effectively excused the Defendant from formally making a Rule 50(a) motion at the close of all the evidence, because it had been made clear upon ruling on Plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence, that the matter contained sufficient factual concerns for the jury to consider. See Cretella v. Kuzminski, 640 F.Supp.2d 741, 755 (E.D.Va.2009). In other words, there are certain courts that have found that the “spirit of the procedural requirements were met” ( see id.), so that it was proper to review a subsequent Rule 50(b) motion, despite a failure to comply with the procedural requirements of raising a formal motion at the close of all evidence.