Kopacz v. Delaware River & Bay Authority ( 2007 )

Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
9-12-2007
Kopacz v. DE River Bay Auth
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-3585
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Kopacz v. DE River Bay Auth" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 446.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/446
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 06-3585
JAN KOPACZ; CATHY KOPACZ
v.
DELAWARE RIVER AND BAY AUTHORITY;
CRAIG SWETT*
(D. C. No. 04-cv-00911)
JAN KOPACZ
v.
DELAWARE RIVER AND BAY AUTHORITY
(D. C. No. 04-01281)
Jan D. Kopacz and Cathy Kopacz,
Appellants.
*(Dismissed per Court order of 10/31/06)
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware
(D.C. No. 04-cv-00911)
District Judge: Hon. Gregory M. Sleet
Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
on July 13, 2007
Before: SLOVITER, ALDISERT and ROTH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: September 12, 2007)
OPINION
ROTH, Circuit Judge:
Jan Kopacz brought suit against the Delaware River and Bay Authority seeking
maintenance and cure, compensatory damages, and punitive damages for an injury that he
alleged occurred when he was struck by a car while working aboard a Delaware River and
Bay Authority ferry. The District Court granted the Delaware River and Bay Authority’s
motion for partial summary judgment as to punitive damages and dismissed Kopacz’s claim
for such. At trial, the jury awarded Kopacz maintenance and cure and certain other damages,
as well as compensatory damages.
The Delaware River and Bay Authority moved for judgment as a matter of law
regarding compensatory damages. The District Court granted the Delaware River and Bay
Authority’s motion and amended the judgment accordingly. The District Court also denied
Kopacz’s motion for attorney fees and costs and prejudgment interest.
Kopacz appealed, arguing that the District Court erred in (1) granting the Delaware
River and Bay Authority’s motion for judgment as a matter of law as to compensatory
2
damages; (2) denying Kopacz’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs and prejudgment
interest; (3) granting partial summary judgment as to punitive damages; (4) denying the
production of materials deemed to be work product; and (5) ruling to prevent certain
questioning during trial. For the reasons set forth below, we will affirm the judgment of the
District Court.
The District Court had jurisdiction under 46 U.S.C. § 688 (Jones Act), 28 U.S.C. §
1333 (federal question), and 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (supplemental jurisdiction). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
I. Analysis
A. Judgment as to Compensatory Damages
Our review of a grant of judgment as a matter of law is plenary. Johnson v. Campbell,
332 F.3d 199, 204 (3d Cir. 2003). “[W]e apply the same standard as the District Court, that
is, whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to verdict, a reasonable jury
could have found for the prevailing party,” and we grant judgment as a matter of law “where
‘the record is critically deficient of the minimum quantum of evidence’ in support of the
verdict.” Id.Kopacz argues that the District Court should not have granted the Delaware River and
Bay Authority’s post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law because the Delaware
River and Bay Authority did not make such a motion at the close of all the evidence. See
FED. R. CIV. P. 50(b). We find that a discussion amongst counsel and the District Court of
post-trial motions during an in-chambers conference constituted a renewal of the Delaware
3
River and Bay Authority’s motion. As such, the Delaware River and Bay Authority was not
foreclosed from renewing its motion post-verdict.
With respect to the substance of the motion, an employee may recover consequential
damages, including lost wages, pain and suffering, and attorneys’ fees and costs, “[if] the
shipowner unreasonably refuses to pay a marine employee’s claim for maintenance and
cure.” O’Connell v. Interocean Mgmt. Corp., 90 F.3d 82, 84 (3d Cir. 1996). No reasonable
jury could have found that the Delaware River and Bay Authority unreasonably withheld
maintenance and cure. The record shows that the Delaware River and Bay Authority did not
believe that the car accident that formed the basis for Kopacz’s claim occurred. There were
no witnesses to the alleged accident besides Kopacz. The jury in fact found that Kopacz had
not been struck and injured by the car.
Although there is evidence that Kopacz was taken to the hospital on the day of the
alleged accident and was there declared unfit for duty, there is no evidence that any incident
on board the ship other than the accident could have caused Kopacz injury. In addition,
Kopacz had a history of health problems, of which the Delaware River and Bay Authority
was aware, that could have accounted for his difficulties in the absence of an accident.
We find that the jury’s conclusion that the Delaware River and Bay Authority
unreasonably withheld maintenance and cure and that Kopacz was entitled to damages was
not supported by the evidence. Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s grant of the
Delaware River and Bay Authority’s motion for judgment as a matter of law.
B. Counsel Fees and Prejudgment Interest
4
Kopacz contends that the District Court erred in denying him attorneys’ fees and
costs. Our review of an award of counsel fees is for abuse of discretion. Diesler v.
McCormack Aggregates, Co., 54 F.3d 1074, 1087 (3d Cir. 1995).
Attorney fees and costs “cannot be recovered unless plaintiff can first establish
defendant’s bad faith or recalcitrance.” Id. A finding of “bad faith” or absence thereof is
reviewed for clear error. See Baker Indus. v. Cerberus, Ltd., 764 F.2d 204, 209-10 (3d Cir.
1985). In light of our finding that the Delaware River and Bay Authority did not act
unreasonably in denying maintenance and cure, we affirm the District Court’s denial of
attorneys’ fees and costs.
With respect to Kopacz’s contention that he is entitled to prejudgment interest,
“the calculation and award of prejudgment interest in admiralty...is a matter left to the sound
discretion of the district court.” M&O Marine, Inc. v. Marquette Co., 730 F.2d 133, 136 (3d
Cir. 1984). The record below does not illuminate the District Court’s reasoning in denying
Kopacz prejudgment interest, although the parties’ briefings on this issue before the District
Court are similar to those on appeal.
The parties dispute whether prejudgment interest is even recoverable in a Jones Act
or general maritime law case and whether prejudgment interest is properly an issue for the
jury. We consider that Kopacz is not entitled to prejudgment interest in any event. As we
stated in Diesler, “Prejudgment interest has traditionally been part of the compensation due
to a plaintiff....Interest must be allowed if plaintiff is to be truly made whole for defendant’s
breach of its duty to provide maintenance and care.” Diesler v. McCormack Aggregates, Co.,
5
54 F.3d 1074, 1087 (3d Cir. 1995) (emphasis added). The record shows Kopacz was paid
sick and annual leave (the equivalent of his wages for the first ninety days of his disability
and sixty percent of his wages thereafter) for all but just over a month of the period when he
was found to be due maintenance and cure. Following trial, he was awarded maintenance
(again the equivalent of his wages for ninety days and sixty percent thereafter), sick and
annual leave (also based on his wages), and medical expenses. On this record, awarding
Kopacz prejudgment interest would be punitive rather than compensatory.
C. Punitive Damages
Kopacz also argues that the District Court erred in dismissing his claim for punitive
damages on summary judgment. Our review of a grant of summary judgment is plenary and
requires us to view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Gottshall
v. Consol. Rail Corp., 56 F.3d 530, 533 (3d Cir.1995). Summary judgment is appropriate if
there are no genuine issues of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c).
As both parties’ briefs reflect, case law addressing the issue of punitive damages in
admiralty cases has generally turned on an analysis of Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S.
19 (1990). In Miles, the Supreme Court held that “[i]t would be inconsistent with our place
in the constitutional scheme were we to sanction more expansive remedies in a judicially
created cause of action in which liability is without fault than Congress has allowed in cases
of death resulting from negligence.” Miles, 498 U.S. at 32-33 (1990).
We have not yet directly addressed whether Miles proscribes recovery of punitive
6
damages for failure to provide maintenance and cure. We have previously recognized,
however, as Kopacz concedes, that the majority of courts do not allow punitive damages for
even arbitrary and willful refusal to pay maintenance and cure. O’Connell v. Interocean
Mgmt. Corp., 90 F.3d 82, 84 (3d Cir. 1996).1 Although the Miles case addressed a wrongful
death action brought under general maritime law, the holding is applicable in this case
because the failure to provide maintenance and cure is similarly “a judicially created cause
of action in which liability is without fault.”2 Accordingly, we will follow the majority of
courts and hold that punitive damages are not recoverable for the Delaware River and Bay
Authority’s failure to provide maintenance and cure.3
D. Discovery Order and Ruling as to Testimony
Kopacz challenges the District Court’s refusal to compel the production of certain
documents and to allow certain questioning at trial. We review the District Court’s
evidentiary rulings and discovery orders for abuse of discretion. Moyer v. United Dominion
1
In O’Connell, we noted that the Second, Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth circuits all disallow
punitive damages in such cases, although the Ninth Circuit has since clarified that while
punitive damages may not be recovered in failure to provide maintenance and cure cases,
they may be available in other claims under general maritime law. In re Exxon Valdez, 270
F.2d 1215, 1227 (9th Cir. 2001).
2
Kopacz relies in part on Yamaha Motor Corp. v. Calhoun, 516 U.S. 199 (1996). The
facts of Yamaha are distinct from those of this case, where a seaman and a federal statute are
involved.
3
Our view is also consistent with Judge Irenas’s conclusion in Jackson v. Delaware River
& Bay Authority, a case that we affirmed, although the issue of punitive damages was not
considered on appeal. Jackson v. Del. River & Bay Auth., 334 F. Supp. 2d 615, 616 n.2
(D.N.J. Feb. 27, 2004), aff’d, 114 Fed. Appx. 511 (3d Cir. 2004) (“[P]unitive damages may
not be awarded in a seaman’s personal injury case under the Jones Act.”).
7
Indus., Inc., 473 F.3d 532, 542 (3d Cir. 2007); Holmes v. Pension Plan of Bethlehem Steel
Corp., 213 F.3d 124, 138 (3d Cir. 2000). The District Court’s findings of fact underpinning
such orders are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard. See Diesler, 54 F.3d at 1079.
With respect to Kopacz’s argument that the District Court should have ordered the
production of certain documents, the District Court specifically reviewed all of these
documents in camera and found that they were prepared in anticipation of litigation. Based
on the record before us, we cannot conclude that the District Court’s determination in that
respect constituted clear error, or that the District Court abused its discretion in denying the
production of these documents.
In addition, Kopacz contends that the District Court erred in preventing counsel from
questioning a witness about opinions she had received from two lawyers regarding Kopacz’s
entitlement to maintenance. Based on the record before us,4 we are unable to conclude that
the District Court abused its discretion in disallowing this testimony.
II. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
4
Our review of this issue is difficult because, as admitted in Kopacz’s brief, the parties
apparently failed to order a transcript for the relevant portion of the trial.
8