Opinion
CIVIL ACTION 4:10-CV-04872
01-17-2017
THE GIL RAMIREZ GROUP, L.L.C. and GIL RAMIREZ, JR., Plaintiffs, v. HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, LAWRENCE MARSHALL, EVA JACKSON and RHJ-JOC, INC., Defendants.
JURY REQUESTED
MEMORANDUM & ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ENTER JUDGMENT
Before the Court is Plaintiff Gil Ramirez Group, LLC's Motion to Enter Judgment ("Plaintiff's Motion"). (Doc. No. 484.) After considering the motion, response, replies thereto, and the applicable law, the Court finds that it must defer ruling on Plaintiff's Motion.
I. BACKGROUND
This case involves allegations of bribery and corruption in the award of construction contracts by the Houston Independent School District ("HISD"). The facts of the case are familiar to the parties and need not be recited in full. The Court will discuss only the background relevant to the entry of final judgment.
On October 24, 2016, the Court called this case to trial and empaneled a jury. On November 16, 2016, the jury rendered a verdict against Defendants Lawrence Marshall, Marshall and Associates, David "Pete" Medford, Fort Bend Mechanical, Ltd., FBM Management, LLC, Eva Jackson, RHJ-JOC, Inc., Joyce Moss Clay, and JM Clay and Associates (collectively, "Defendants"). The jury found all Defendants liable for (1) tortious interference with a prospective business relationship and (2) claims under the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt
Plaintiff has elected compensatory damages under the tortious interference claim. Plaintiff also seeks punitive damages for tortious interference, the trebled portion of RICO damages (subtracting the actual damage amount), and attorney's fees and costs under RICO. Plaintiff argues its proposed judgment does not result in double recovery because it seeks actual damages under only one claim: tortious interference. According to Plaintiff, neither the punitive damages nor RICO treble damages—awarded as additional remedial measures—are duplicative. (Doc. No. 490 at 2.) Plaintiff's interpretation is impermissible under Texas law.
When analyzing election of remedies questions, the Fifth Circuit is concerned not only with duplicative damages but also with "mixing and matching" of damage elements arising under different claims. Litigants "cannot cut and paste elements of relief arising from different theories of recovery." Quest Med., Inc. v. Apprill, 90 F.3d 1080, 1093-94 (5th Cir. 1996). In Quest, the court held that the prevailing party could not tack an exemplary damages award based on common-law fraud to an actual damages award under the Texas Securities Act. Id. More telling, the Fifth Circuit has stricken the attorney's fees of a prevailing party because the claim that the party had elected for the actual damages award did not provide for fees. See Am. Rice, Inc. v. Producers Rice Mill, Inc., 518 F.3d 321, 335-36 (5th Cir. 2008). Even though the party had prevailed on two theories, one of which allowed recovery of attorney's fees, the Court of Appeals permitted an award under only one theory. Id.
In this case, Plaintiff seeks a combination of elements of relief from different claims, similar to the amalgamation of awards previously rejected by the Fifth Circuit. Plaintiff may not obtain an award that incorporates elements from both a tortious interference theory and RICO, even if those elements appear non-duplicative. Plaintiff must elect one claim for relief on which to recover, and that claim governs the full scope of the award. Marshall could have exercised his governmental power and also exceeded the scope of his duties. As the Fifth Circuit held, accepting bribes in exchange for advancing specific interests extends beyond Mr. Marshall's position as a trustee. The jury found not only that Mr. Marshall engaged in an official act, but also that his conduct was tortious or unlawful. (Doc. No. 480 at 12, 27-28.) Such tortious or unlawful conduct extends beyond Mr. Marshall's duties as a trustee. The Texas Education Code §22.515 therefore does not limit damages against Mr. Marshall.
III. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff is entitled to damages, as the jury found all Defendants liable for multiple claims for relief. Plaintiff must elect under which theory of recovery it wishes to collect damages—either the tortious interference or RICO. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to elect remedies under only one claim for relief, consistent with the analysis above, within ten (10) days of this Order. Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Judgment is hereby DEFERRED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas on the 17th of January, 2017.
/s/_________
HON. KEITH P. ELLISON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE