Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
No. 07-1848
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:05-cv-03359-WDQ)
Argued:
December 3, 2008
Decided:
February 6, 2009
ARGUED:
Matthew
S.
Gibbs,
Los
Angeles,
California,
for
Appellant. Craig Forrest Ballew, FERGUSON, SCHETELICH & BALLEW,
P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Chrystal L.
Bobbitt, LITIGATION COUNSEL FOR GLOBAL HORIZONS, INC., Los
Angeles, California, for Appellant. Tracey Dallahan-McLauchlin,
FERGUSON, SCHETELICH & BALLEW, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.
PER CURIAM:
Appellees John M. Cohee, Jr., and his wife, Diana B.
Cohee, operate Cohee Farms in Preston, Maryland.
the
appellees
contract
as
between
(Global),
in
Cohee.)
Cohee
which
and
Global
The
present
dispute
appellant
Global
agreed
provide
to
(We refer to
involves
Horizons,
Cohee
Inc.
labor
Global
jury determined that the contract was breached and awarded Cohee
damages that included lost profits for 2005 and future profits
for 2006 and 2007.
also
bases.
challenges
the
damages
awarded
to
Cohee
on
several
I.
We
recount
the
evidence,
presented
in
four-day
verdict.
Global
is
California
corporation
that
United
States
program.
complex
on
temporary
basis
through
the
H-2A
visa
Global
has
customer
base
of
farmers
who
are
In
late 2003 or early 2004 Global met with several Maryland farmers
to provide them information about the availability of H-2A labor
and
about
Globals
services.
Cohee
was
among
those
in
attendance.
In need of labor, Cohee entered a contract with Global
for H-2A labor for his 2004 harvest, and Global provided the
laborers needed.
the
parties
executed
the
Farm
Labor
In March
Contractor
H-2A
its
own
expense
to
Cohee
J.A. 695.
from
June
25,
2005
through
upon
surcharge.
hourly
for
each
worker
plus
certain
for
the
laborers
during
that
harvest
season.
By
In late spring
local
Econo
Lodge
Motel,
although
Global
representatives
Cohee
During
Cohees
June,
multiple
July,
and
conversations
August
about
with
his
Global
pressing
representatives
need
for
in
workers,
J.A.
848.
Without his anticipated labor force, Cohee turned to
family and neighbors for help harvesting his crops.
A cousin
August,
neighbor
with
larger
farming
operation
began
loaning Cohee between six and twenty-six workers, but only for a
few hours each morning.
J.A. 862.
that
independent
season.
Global
concerns
had
caused
about
the
to
his
customer
availability
of
base
labor
and
that
result, and a sweet corn packaging shed that Cohee had built was
rendered useless.
At the conclusion of Cohees evidence, Global moved
for judgment as a matter of law, and the motion was denied.
The
jury
and
found
Global
in
breach
of
its
contract
with
Cohee
II.
Global makes several arguments on appeal.
argues
that
Agreement.
the
jury
improperly
found
that
it
First, it
breached
the
awarded
by
the
Agreement,
which
jury
were
is
improper
governed
consequential damages.
by
because
the
California
terms
law,
of
the
prohibited
review
de
novo
the
district
courts
denial
of
Adkins v.
Crown Auto, Inc., 488 F.3d 225, 231 (4th Cir. 2007); Brown v.
CSX Transp., Inc. 18 F.3d 245, 248 (4th Cir. 1994).
may
award
judgment
as
matter
of
law
only
if
A court
there
is
no
Trust Co. of Va., 526 F.3d 142, 147 (4th Cir. 2008).
And the
court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving
party,
partys favor.
drawing
all
reasonable
inferences
in
that
decision
absent
exceptional
circumstances.
Id.
at
650;
Iron Works, 41 F.3d at 182 (quoting DMI, Inc. v. Deere & Co.,
802 F.2d 421, 427 (Fed. Cir. 1986)).
We review the denial of a Rule 59(e) motion to alter
or amend judgment for abuse of discretion.
396 F.3d 548, 555 (4th Cir. 2005).
Bogart v. Chapell,
with
Agreement
to
first
argues
that
Cohee
because
it
provide
housing
to
was
its
it
did
not
H-2A
not
breach
the
under
the
obligated
workers.
Rather,
district
determined
court
that
the
Agreement
place[d]
the
it governs.
Bay
Cities Paving & Grading, Inc. v. Lawyers Mut. Ins. Co., 855
P.2d 1263, 1271 (Cal. 1993) (emphasis removed).
We conclude as
J.A.
attendant
to
providing
H-2A
labor.
There
are
no
costs.
See
J.A.
695.
The
Agreement
provided
that
J.A. 696.
ancillary
support,
equipment,
supplies,
transportation
and
J.A. 696.
These
intended
represented
applicable
to
in
laws
regulations,
include
the
housing
Agreement
and
which
expenses.
that
regulations,
require
that
it
would
including
housing
Moreover,
comply
H-2A
be
Global
with
visa
provided
all
program
to
H-2A
Globals representations in
the
Agreement
did
not
also
contemplate
that
Global
was
the entire agreement between the parties hereto, and there have
been
no
Agreement,
herein.
oral
or
or
the
J.A. 699.
written
provisions
representations
hereof,
except
affecting
as
set
this
forth
is
reasonably
susceptible.
Dore
v.
Arnold
Worldwide, Inc., 139 P.3d 56, 60 (Cal. 2006); Pac. Gas & Elec.,
Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co., 442 P.2d 641, 644
(Cal. 1968).
45%
added).
confirm
(housing
and
Further,
Cohee
several
details
transportation).
sent
Globals
pertaining
to
J.A.
27
president
the
(emphasis
letter
Agreement.
to
That
Global negotiated
In
Finally,
Insofar as the
admissible,
and
understood
that
that
evidence
Global
would
makes
clear
provide
that
housing
both
under
parties
the
2005
Agreement.
Global contends that one provision in the contract,
paragraph 8(iv) reserved to it the option to determine whether
or not it would provide housing.
responsibility
to
provide
housing,
paragraph
8(iv)
concluded
that
the
Agreement
made
Global
responsible
for
making
district
that
court
responsibility
labor
available.
properly
to
This
responsibility,
determined,
included
housing.
There
provide
the
was
the
ultimate
sufficient
13
B.
Global also argues that the jury should not have been
permitted to award consequential damages because the Agreement
expressly
precluded
liability
for
such
damages.
For
this
California.
of
paragraph
8(g)
is
not
broad
limitation
of
liability.
As noted above, the context in which a term appears
is critical.
Lines
Ins.
Co.,
42
Cal.
(emphasis in original).
App.
4th
121,
126
(Ct.
App.
1996)
14
appears
indicates
that
it
has
narrow
applicability.
If
the
not
the
appropriate
place
in
this
agreement
for
it.
in
making
payments
to
Global.
If
the
parties
had
Governing
stand-alone
Law
provisions
and
that
Waiver,
are
and
broadly
it
Paragraph 9 is
contains
applicable
three
to
all
(a)
are
essentially
limited
to
that
topic.
Its
it
would
limitation
on
appear
liability
in
paragraph
provision
15
9.
was
The
the
fact
third
that
sentence
the
of
liability
limitation.
The
previous
paragraph,
8(f),
provides that Global will submit a bill every Tuesday and that
Cohee must pay all undisputed amounts within two days of the
billing date.
billing
statements,
the
final
sentence
of
paragraph
8(f)
provides: the parties shall meet and use their best efforts to
resolve the matter in question.
J.A. 698.
Paragraph 8(h)
J.A. 698.
of
automatically
J.A. 698.
paragraph
adjusted
to
8(h),
the
the
maximum
percentage
rate
allowed
shall
by
be
law.
on
liability
to
a
16
narrow
compensation-related
from
payment.
Globals
removal
of
workers
due
to
delayed
J.A. 698.
Because
situation
the
dispute
here
did
not
involve
the
to
late
payment
by
Cohee
--
consequential
damages
were
available.
C.
Global also separately challenges each of the specific
categories of damages awarded on the grounds that the evidence
was insufficient and that certain damages were too speculative
and were not reasonably foreseeable to Global.
1.
With respect to the $490,000 awarded for lost profits
in
2005,
Global
argues
that
these
damages
were
speculative
of his crops.
whether
the
evidence
submitted
as
the
expected
yield
or
certainty
in
2005,
the
standard
for
determining
Inc. v. Kirin Group, Inc., 152 Cal. App. 4th 281, 287-88 (Ct.
App. 2007).
damages assuming that Cohee would have harvested all 120 acres
of watermelon and sweet corn planted if Global had not breached,
yet
there
was
not
sufficient
evidence
to
establish
that
120
Global failed
necessarily assume that all 120 acres would have been harvested
but for Globals breach.
finding
of
$490,000
in
damages
The evidence
even
absent
been
harvested
but
for
the
breach.
Cohees
expert
there
was
sufficient
evidence
for
reasonable juror to conclude that all 120 acres would have been
18
J.A. 807.
for the jury to find that Cohee would not have planted more
acres than he would be able to harvest with the ten-person labor
force he anticipated.
These
is
not
sufficient
to
the
jurys
implicit
some evidence from which a juror could make such a finding, the
jury in this case obviously made a different finding.
It found
market and wholesale customers will not give a farmer who drops
the ball a second chance.
J.A. 945.
A gap in a farmers
But California
Farms
is
an
established
business,
and
Cohee
Cohee
planted
about
55
acres
of
Parlour
watermelon
per
season,
per
acre
for
labor.
Similarly,
the
record
contains
calculate
testified
[Cohees]
that
earnings
[beyond 2006].
estimated
have
lost
there
been
J.A. 995.
is
profits
a
for
strong
adversely
2007,
but
probability
affected
the
that
prospectively
for
2006
was
sufficient
to
2007,
the
and
relevant
to
demonstrate
data
future
the
years.
occurrence
relating
to
This
of
average
testimony
lost
yield
profits
and
is
in
pricing
the
sweet
diminished
corn
packaging
utility
as
facility
result
of
he
built
Globals
in
2004
breach.
Global argues on appeal that this damages award was improper for
two reasons: (1) there was insufficient evidence of a causal
connection between Globals breach and the damages awarded and
(2) those damages were not reasonably foreseeable to Global.
Because Global failed to raise these arguments before
the district court, we review for plain error.
In this analysis
We find no plain
in
2006
connection
and
between
2007,
the
unnecessary expenses.
corn
and
watermelon
the
breach
evidence
and
the
establishes
alleged
damage
causal
due
to
diminishing
the
utility
facility.
The
evidence
result
of
of
Globals
Cohees
supporting
sweet
these
breach,
corn
thereby
packaging
determinations
is
shed
subjective test.
evidence
which
would
have
satisfied
the
have been aware that Cohee would suffer losses to sweet cornspecific investments by its breach.
23
It is not a stretch to
even
if
we
assume
that
these
losses
were
not
that
integrity
or
any
error
public
seriously
reputation
affect[ed]
of
judicial
the
fairness,
proceedings.
Celotex Corp., 124 F.3d at 631; see also Matco Mach & Tool Co.
v. Cincinnati Milacron Co., 727 F.2d 777, 781 (8th Cir. 1984)
(declining to find that error in damages instruction to jury
seriously affected the fairness of the proceedings).
did
Global
fail
in
district
court
to
argue
Not only
lack
of
foreseen
the
harm
as
the
probable
result
of
the
As a result, we
24
* * *
The judgment is
AFFIRMED.
25