Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Barranco v. 3D Systems Corp.

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

May 9, 2017

RONALD BARRANCO, Plaintiff,
v.
3D SYSTEMS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, 3D SYSTEMS, INC., a California corporation, ABRAHAM REICHENTAL, DAMON GREGOIRE, Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S ORAL MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

          Leslie E. Kobayashi United States District Judge

         On May 23, 2016, Plaintiff Ronald Barranco (“Plaintiff”) made an oral motion for judgment as a matter of law on Defendants 3D Systems Corp. and 3D Systems, Inc.'s (collectively “Defendants”) counterclaims (“Plaintiff's Rule 50(a) Motion”). [Minutes, filed 5/23/16 (dkt. no. 263).] The Court heard oral argument on the motion, and permitted the parties to submit written briefs on the matter. [Id.] On May 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Supplemental Brief in Support of His Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Re: “Accounting” (“Plaintiff's Supplemental Brief”). [Dkt. no. 267.] The same day, Defendants filed a memorandum in opposition to Plaintiff's Rule 50(a) Motion (“Defendants' Supplemental Brief”). [Dkt. no. 269.] In an Entering Order filed on June 22, 2016 (“6/22/16 EO”), the Court granted Plaintiff's Rule 50(a) Motion as to Defendant's counterclaim for failure to convey the website lasersintering.com (“LSCOM”). [Dkt. no. 287.] After careful consideration of the remaining arguments in the motion, supporting and opposing memoranda, and the relevant legal authority, Plaintiff's Rule 50(a) Motion is HEREBY DENIED as to Defendants' counterclaim for breach of the non-compete agreement for the reasons set forth below.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff filed his Complaint on August 23, 2013, and Defendants filed their Amended Counterclaims Against Plaintiff on November 5, 2014 (“Amended Counterclaims”). [Dkt. nos. 1, 118.] Jury selection took place on May 17, 2017, and trial commenced the same day. [Minutes, filed 5/17/17 (dkt. no. 251).] The trial proceeded on: Plaintiff's claims for (1) breach of contract (“Count I”), (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing (“Count III”), and (3) unjust enrichment (“Count VI”); and Defendants' counterclaims for (1) failure to convey LSCOM (“Counterclaim Count I”) and (2) breach of the non-compete agreement (“Counterclaim Count II”).[1] On May 20, 2016, Plaintiff rested his case, and Defendants made an oral motion for judgment as a matter of law (“Defendants' Rule 50(a) Motion”). [Minutes, filed 5/20/16 (dkt. no. 259).] In an Entering Order filed on May 23, 2016, the Court granted Defendant's Rule 50(a) Motion as to Count VI, and reserved ruling on the remainder of the motion. [Dkt. no. 262.] On May 23, 2016, Defendants rested their case and renewed their Rule 50(a) motion. [Minutes, filed 5/23/16 (dkt. no. 263).] As previously noted, the Court considered Plaintiff's Rule 50(a) Motion the same day, and determined that, with regard to Counterclaim Count I, Defendants had failed to present any evidence of damages and that Plaintiff was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See 6/22/16 EO. On May 26, 2016, the parties presented closing arguments, and the jury began deliberations immediately thereafter. [Minutes, filed 5/26/16 (dkt. no. 278).] On May 27, 2016, the jury reached a verdict, and found in favor of Defendants on all remaining counts. See Special Verdict Form, filed 5/27/16 (dkt. no. 282).

         The 6/22/16 EO, the Court reiterated that it had granted Plaintiff's Rule 50(a) Motion as to Counterclaim Count I. [Dkt. no. 287.] Moreover, pursuant to the Defendants' oral agreement at the status conference held on June 21, 2016, the Court denied Defendants' Rule 50(a) Motion as moot.[2] [6/22/16 EO at 2.]

         STANDARD

         Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 provides, in relevant part:

(a) Judgment as a Matter of Law.
(1) In General. If a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue, the court may:
(A) resolve the issue against the party; and
(B) grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against the party on a claim or defense that, under the controlling law, can be maintained or defeated only with a favorable finding on that issue.
(2) Motion. A motion for judgment as a matter of law may be made at any time before the case is submitted to the jury. The motion must specify the judgment sought and the law and facts that entitle the movant to the judgment.
(b) Renewing the Motion After Trial; Alternative Motion for a New Trial. If the court does not grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law made under Rule 50(a), the court is considered to have submitted the action to the jury subject to the court's later deciding the legal questions raised by the motion. No later than 28 days after the entry of judgment - or if the motion addresses a jury issue not decided by a verdict, no later than 28 days after the jury was discharged - the movant may file a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and may include an alternative or joint request for a new trial under [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 59. In ruling on the renewed motion, the court may:
(1) allow judgment on the verdict, if the jury returned a verdict;
(2) order a new trial; or
(3) direct the entry of judgment as a matter of law.

         This Court has stated:

The standard for judgment as a matter of law mirrors that for granting summary judgment. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 149-50 (2000). “[I]n entertaining a motion for judgment as a matter of law, the court . . . may not make credibility determinations or weight the evidence.” Id. at 149. Rather, the court “must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party . . . and draw all reasonable inferences in that party's favor.” Josephs v. Pac. Bell, 443 F.3d 1050, 1062 (9th Cir. 2006). Where there is sufficient conflicting evidence, or if reasonable minds could differ over the verdict, judgment as a matter of law is improper. Pier ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.