¶ 8 KAI filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and, in the alternative, motion for new trial (“Renewed JMOL Motion”) in accordance with Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 50(b). The court subsequently rejected the jury's advisory findings and found in favor of KAI on the equitable estoppel claim. The jury also found, by its answers to the interrogatories, that McBride had satisfied the elements necessary to support his equitable estoppel claim. ¶ 7 The jury returned a verdict in McBride's favor on the tolling agreement claim. The trial judge denied the motion, explaining that he thought there was “evidence that reasonable people could disagree upon” and that the issues needed to go to the jury. KAI also argued there was no evidence of McBride's duress, which was a necessary element of the equitable estoppel claim. 2 At the close of evidence, KAI moved for judgment as a matter of law arguing the evidence showed the parties did not intend to enter into a tolling agreement because the agreement's terms were indefinite. ¶ 6 At the initial trial, the parties presented conflicting evidence as to the existence of a tolling agreement. Depending on the outcome of the statute of limitations trial, a second trial would presumably address the merits of the underlying claims and counterclaims. The jury had two functions in the initial trial: first, to resolve whether the parties had agreed to toll the statute of limitations and second, to serve in an advisory capacity by answering interrogatories that would assist the court in ruling whether KAI was equitably estopped from asserting the statute of limitations defense. The first trial would determine the viability of KAI's statute of limitations defense. ¶ 5 Upon remand, the trial court ordered a bifurcated jury trial. Kieckheffer Assoc., Inc., 1 CA-CV 02-0020 (Ariz.App. The trial court granted KAI summary judgment, McBride appealed, and we reversed. McBride also argued KAI should be equitably estopped from asserting a statute of limitations defense. In opposition to KAI's motions, McBride argued that the parties' attorneys-Daniel Bonnett representing McBride and Richard Walker representing KAI-orally agreed before litigation commenced that the statute of limitations would be tolled while the parties attempted to negotiate a settlement. KAI subsequently moved for judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment, arguing McBride's claims were barred by the one-year statute of limitations, Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 12-541 (2003). KAI answered and asserted counterclaims against McBride. McBride filed a complaint in late May 1999, alleging that KAI wrongfully terminated him. ¶ 4 McBride was employed by KAI as its treasurer and tax manager until early March 1998. Accordingly, we remand for a new trial and any other proceedings consistent with this decision. Because we conclude that granting a new trial was within the trial court's broad discretion, we affirm that ruling. McBride further contends that the trial court erred in conditionally granting a new trial on the tolling issue. ¶ 3 McBride contends the trial court erred in granting KAI's renewed motion for JMOL. The trial court thereafter granted KAI's renewed motion for JMOL and also conditionally granted KAI a new trial. An initial jury trial was conducted to determine if the parties had agreed to toll the statute of limitations. 1 KAI asserted a statute of limitations defense. McBride filed an action for damages against Appellees Kieckhefer Associates, Inc., Eugene P. We also address the different standards of appellate review applied to such rulings. ¶ 1 In this appeal we address the different roles of a trial judge when ruling on motions for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) compared to motions for new trial. Meyer Hendricks, PLLC ByEd Hendricks, Sr., Brendan Murphy, Scott Mihalik, Phoenix, Attorneys for Appellees. Bracken, Phoenix, Attorneys for Apellants. Stanley, and Martin & Bonnett, PLLC ByDaniel L. Decided: January 27, 2011īonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, P.C. Kieckhefer, husband and wife, Defendants/Counterclaimants/Appellees. KIECKHEFER ASSOCIATES, INC., an Arizona corporation Eugene P. McBRIDE, Plaintiff/Counterdefendant/Appellant, Billie T. Court of Appeals of Arizona,Division 1, Department E.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |