MFS Inc v. Thomas Dilazaro , 476 F. App'x 282 ( 2012 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 11-1690
_____________
MFS INC,
Appellant
v.
THOMAS A. DILAZARO; SEAN L. ROBBINS;
MARK WEJKSZNER; MICHAEL BEDRIN
_____________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 5-08-cv-02508)
District Judge: Honorable Joel H. Slomsky
_____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
January 12, 2012
Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, FUENTES and JORDAN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: April 26, 2012)
_____________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_____________
McKEE, Chief Judge.
Mineral Fiber Services, Inc. (“MFS”) brought this civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that three employees of the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (“PaDEP”) and the government attorney assigned to the
PaDEP (collectively “PaDEP officials”), violated its rights under the First and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution. Specifically, MFS claimed a violation of
its right to petition the government for redress of grievances without retaliation as well as
violations of its rights to substantive and procedural due process and to equal treatment
under the law. In addition, MFS brought a state law claim of tortious interference with
prospective contractual relations. After MFS won a jury verdict, the PaDEP officials
moved pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) and 59 for judgment as a matter of law or,
alternatively a new trial. The District Court granted the post-trial motion for judgment as
a matter of law and this appeal followed. We will affirm.
I.
Because we write primarily for the benefit of the parties, we assume familiarity
with the facts.
II.
We exercise plenary review of the District Court‟s grant of judgment as a matter
of law. Pitts v. Delaware, 646 F.3d 151, 155 (3d Cir. 2011). We review the record
evidence in the light most favorable to MFS, as the verdict winner, and draw all
reasonable inferences in its favor. Id. A court should grant judgment as a matter of law
“sparingly.” Id. (citation omitted). Thus, “only if the record is „critically deficient of the
minimum quantum of evidence‟ upon which a jury could reasonably base its verdict will
we affirm a court‟s grant of judgment as a matter of law. Id. (citation omitted). After
carefully reviewing the record and the submissions of the parties here, we find no basis
for disturbing the District Court‟s ruling. The District Court explained that ruling in a
2
comprehensive opinion that was as well-reasoned as it was thorough. Since we can add
little to the District Court‟s discussion, we will affirm the ruling of the District Court
substantially for the reasons set forth in the District Court‟s opinion.
Moreover, since, as the District Court explained, there is no constitutional
violation, we need not address any issues of qualified immunity.
3