Whitesell Corporation v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., No. 1:2003cv00050 - Document 1901 (S.D. Ga. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER denying in all respects 1887 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law; terminating as moot the initial related 1867 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law; denying in all respects 1888 Motion for New Trial; terminating as moot the initial related 1865 Motion for New Trial. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 11/7/2023. (gmh)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Whitesell Corporation v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc. Doc. 1901 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION WHITESELL CORPORATION, * Plaintiff, * * V. * CV 103-050 k HUSQVARNA OUTDOOR PRODUCTS, INC. , * * -k Defendant. * HUSQVARNA OUTDOOR PRODUCTS, * INC. * and PRODUCTS, ELECTROLUX HOME INC. , * * Counter-Plaintiffs, * * V. * k WHITESELL CORPORATION, * k Counter-Defendant. * ORDER Plaintiff Whitesell Renewed Judgment as Corporation has filed a Matter of Law and a Motion a Motion for for New Trial. While the trial of this case occurred in February ol this year, consideration transcription of of post-trial the trial matters and Plaintiff Whitesell's request. has various been pretrial s':ayed pending proceedings at These matters were fully briefed Dockets.Justia.com on September 12, 2023, and now come before the Court for consideration anbl resolution. Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b), the Court may grant judgment as a matter of law "'^after the jury has returned its verdict if there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find' for the non-moving party." V. City of Orlando, Fla., 483 F.3d Chaney 1221, 1227 (ll^n cir. 2007) {quoted source omitted). When reviewing a Rule 50(b) motion, the Court evidence must look at the in the record inferences in favor of the non-moving party. and draw all Cleveland v. Home Shopping Network, Inc., 369 F.3d 1189, 1192-93 (11^^ Cir. 2004). '^Credibility determinations, weighing the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge.'" Id. at 1193 (quoted source omitted). That said. Plaintiff Whitesell's miotion for judgment as a matter of law challenges two questions of law resolved against it prior to the jury trial. that the statute of The first is the Court's determination limitations counterclaims of Counter-Defendants defense did not Husqvarna Outdoor Inc. C'HOPI") and Electrolux Home Products, Inc. bar the Products, Despite Plaintiff Whitesell's attempt to contravene the untimeliness of this ''eve of trial" assertion of the defense, the Court remains convinced that Plaintiff Whitesell waived any statute of limitations defense by its utter failure to raise the issue in any meaningful way (indeed, not at all) in a motion in limine, in the proceedings in anticipation of the initial trial date, in the pretrial order, or in a motion for summary judgment during the pendency of the case. The Court incorporates by reference its remarks at the beginning of the video conference of January 20, 2023. Second, Plaintiff Whitesell contends that judgment should be entered against HOPI on its counterclaim for lost discounts because HOPI never provided substitute revenue for the failed transition of Brunner and Matrix parts in accordance with Paragraph Three of the Settlement Memorandum. This is an oft repeated refrain from Plaintiff that Whitesell - one occasions. has been rejected on multiple The Court's Order of June 7, 2022, amply describes the place that Paragraph Three falls in this litigation. (See Doc. No. 1579.) As described therein, the obligation to transition Brunner Matrix and parts (or substitute parts) underpins both Plaintiff Whitesell's breach of contract claim for damages related to operational losses and inventory costs and Defendant HOPI's counterclaim for losses in the form of pricing discounts and annual rebates. But while Paragraph Three is highly relevant to the obligation to transition Brunner and Matrix parts, it did not create in Plaintiff Whitesell an automatic right to substitute revenue so as to warrant judgment as a matter of law. 3 Rather, the failed transition of the Brunner and Matrix parts contested jury issue on the attribution of fault. was a hotly The jury laid the fault at the feet of Plaintiff Whitesell in determining it did not satisfy its contractual obligations related to the transition of Brunner verdict. and Matrix parts, and the evidence supports that (See Verdict Form, Doc. No. 1851, i 2.) The last aspect of Plaintiff Whitesell's motion contends that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on its claim that Defendant HOPI failed to pay for its Brunner and Matrix inventory. Plaintiff Whitesell argues defense to its claim. that HOPI did not provide a valid In this regard. Plaintiff Whitesell claims that the conpept of ''production readiness" applies only to the long-term supply of parts, i.e., part transition, and not to the purchase of approved parts for a single build season. So, Defendant HOPI was obligated to buy this inventory regardless of Plaintiff future. Whitesell's readiness attribution Brunner and Matrix parts. readiness produce more parts in the This contention would have the Court ignore the evidence related to the declare to that its of fault (as the failed transition of Plaintiff Whitesell would have the Court jury-determined obligation on well as breach any of breach its of production its other obligations related to part qualification, pricing, and its duty to use its best efforts) is irrelevant to its claim for the value of inventory. Plaintiff Whitesell did not have a claim for the 4 value of inventory for the 2008-2009 build season separate and apart from its contractual obligations to supply all of Defendant HOPI's Brunner and Matrix requirements for the entire contractual period. And, the jury determined that the failed transition of Brunner and Matrix parts was the fault of Plaintiff Whitesell; there is no basis in law or fact to carve out a subset of those parts to Plaintiff Whitesell's benefit. The Court once again observes that this is a contract case, and the jury's purpose was to attribute fault. Upon consideration of the evidence presented at trial, the Court readily concludes that the jury's verdict is well-founded, logical, and supported by the evidence. Upon the foregoing. Plaintiff Whitesell's motion for judgment as a matter of law (doc. no. 1887) is DENIED in all respects. The Clerk is directed to TERMINATE AS MOOT the initial related motion (doc. no. 1867). Motion for a New Trial In reading the briefs of the parties related to the Motion for New Trial, the ''bad marriage" analogy used by the Court in a pretrial hearing may be understated. of mediating and presiding over the This case has involved years vitriol with the ultimate objective of conducting a fair and efficient trial in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of Evidence. The trial celebrating a of the score case on was this conducted Court's just docket. short The of tenor it and temperature of the litigants was constantly observed, measured and evaluated, and as the trial grew nigh, the inescapable conclusion of the undersigned judge is that close rein and careful monitoring were necessary to meet the Court's objectives. To that end, along the road to trial, the Court ruled on numerous motions in limine without a hearing, conducted a hearing on the remaining motions in limine on November 18, 2022, conducted a two-day hearing on objections to exhibits on January 5-6, 2023, conducted an eighthour pretrial conference on January 17, 2023, and another five- hour video conference on January 20, 2023 - all with the goal of narrowing the scope of trial to relevant material and establishing guardrails to maintain the proceedings within that scope. The extensive record reflects the limits of the Court's rulings and resolve were tested, particularly in the pretrial proceedings and at trial. In its motion. Plaintiff Whitesell points to numerous allegedly improper arguments and erroneous evidentiary rulings that resulted in substantial prejudice to its case. Most of its complaints either focus guardrails and respective lawyers. their on or were application The question, to impacted the then, is by the parties whether and Court's their Plaintiff Whitesell's list of grievances rises to the standard required to 6 receive a new trial. A new trial may be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) if the jury's verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence or will result in a miscarriage of justice. 1991). Court, Ins. Co. of N.A. v. Valente^ 933 F.2d 921, 923 (11^^ Cir. When considering evidentiary rulings already made by the the inquiry is whether the exclusion or admission evidence affected the moving party's substantial rights. of Perry v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 734 F.2d 1441, 1446 (11'^*'^ Cir. 1984) ("Error in the admission or exclusion of evidence is harmless if it does not affect the substantial rights of the parties."). In considering whether a jury verdict should be set aside because of misconduct by counsel, the Court must determine "whether the conduct was ^such as to impair gravely the calm and dispassionate consideration of the case by the jury.'" Eastman BankAtlantic v. Blythe Paine Webber, Inc., 955 F.2d 1467, 174 (11^^ Cir. 1992) (quoted source omitted). Upon review of the parties' positions in brief, and upon recollection of the evidence presented at trial, the Court finds that a new trial is not warranted. The jury verdict was contrary to the great weight of the evidence. Plaintiff Whitesell has failed to not Most importantly. establish that this Court committed error in its evidentiary rulings and any evidentiary error, if substantial committed, rights. was In so prejudicial short, 7 after as careful to and affect its deliberate consideration, the Court is convinced that any evidentiary error or improper comment or argument of counsel did not undermine the integrity of the proceedings. Accordingly, Plaintiff Whitesell's motion for a new trial {doc. no. 1888) is DENIED in all respects. The Clerk is directed to TERMINATE AS MOOT the initial related motion (doc. no. 1865). ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this / day of November, 2023. J.V^ND)AL'HAL2r, UNITED SOUTH STATES IK CHIEF (JUDGE DISTRICT DISTRICT COURT OF GEORGIA
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
