Huang v. BP Amoco Corp , 71 F. App'x 909 ( 2003 )

Opinions of the United
2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
7-29-2003
Huang v. BP Amoco Corp
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 02-2993
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003
Recommended Citation
"Huang v. BP Amoco Corp" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 338.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/338
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 2003 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 02-2993
___________
JOSEPH HUANG; JULIA Y. HUANG, H/W,
Appellants
v.
BP AMOCO CORPORATION
___________
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(D.C. Civil No. 00-cv-01290)
District Judge: The Honorable Clarence C. Newcomer
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
July 7, 2003
BEFORE: NYGAARD, SMITH, and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges.
(Filed July 29, 2003)
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
Appellants Joseph and Julia Huang appeal from the jury verdict of July 5,
2002, in which BP Amoco Corporation was found not liable for breaching either the
express terms of a contract with the Huangs or the contract’s implied duty of good faith.
Because we conclude that the District Court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or jury
instructions, the jury’s verdict should not be disturbed, and we will affirm.
In 1998, Joseph and Julia Huang entered into an agreement with Amoco.
According to the agreement, Amoco would lease real estate in Philadelphia owned by the
Huangs if certain contingencies were met. After Amoco terminated the agreement at the
expiration of the time period for obtaining necessary permits, the Huangs filed suit. In
2001, we reversed the District Court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Amoco,
holding that Amoco had a duty to make a diligent, good faith effort to apply for municipal
approvals. Huang v. BP Amoco Corp., 271 F.3d 560 (3d Cir. 2001). We determined that
the District Court had avoided “the factual question that lies at the heart of this case:
whether BP Amoco’s failure to seek the Approvals violated its covenant of good faith and
fair dealing.” Id. at 565-66. We remanded so that this factual question could be decided
by a jury. In 2002, a jury that was presented with evidence relevant to whether Amoco
breached either the express terms of the contract or its implied duty of good faith found in
favor of Amoco.
2
First, Appellant claims that the District Court erred in its jury instructions.
While we exercise plenary review when the jury instructions misstate applicable state
law, we review for abuse of discretion in the absence of a misstatement. Greenleaf v.
Garlock, Inc., 174 F.3d 352 (3d Cir. 1999). Appellants argue that the District Court erred
by not instructing the jury that it was to determine Amoco’s good faith “based solely on
conduct related to seeking Approvals.” Appellants’ Br. at 2. In addition, Appellants
contend that the District Court erred by instructing the jury that Plaintiff had the burden of
showing that Amoco “failed to act in good faith.” Id. Appellants also assert that the
District Court erred when it instructed the jury that Amoco had a contractual obligation to
apply for the appropriate permits independent of its “development of a specific plan for
the use of the property.” Id. Finally, Appellants argue that the District Court should not
have instructed the jury to disregard the acceleration clause of the lease even if the jury
found that Amoco breached the lease. Id. at 3. We conclude, however, that the District
Court’s instructions to the jury on the legal standards of good faith and damages stated
the law accurately, and correctly framed the issues that remained after our remand.
Appellants also complain that the District Court erred in its evidentiary
rulings. We review the District Court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion.
Buskirk v. Apollo M etals, 307 F.3d 160 (3d Cir. 2002). Appellants argue that the District
Court should not have precluded Appellants’ witness, who was one of Appellants’
attorneys, from identifying and authenticating his own correspondence declaring Amoco
3
in default of the subject lease. The District Court has the discretion to determine that
otherwise relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially
outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion, misleading the jury, or by
considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative
evidence. F ED. R. E VID . 403. We therefore hold that the District Court had the discretion
to exclude the testimony of one of the Appellants’ attorneys concerning a letter, the
substance of which was already before the jury because an Amoco employee had read it
earlier in the day. Appellants also argue that the District Court erred by allowing Joseph
Mitchell, who had made a written offer to lease Appellants’ property, to testify for the
defense concerning “irrelevant and speculative issues.” Appellants’ Br. at 2. We
conclude, however, that the testimony was relevant because, had the jury found that
Amoco breached the lease, the jury would have had to determine the Appellants’
damages. Finally, Appellants contend that the District Court erred by allowing Amoco to
admit two “site plans” into evidence. The District Court has broad discretion in its
conduct of discovery. Wisniewski v. Johns-Manville Corp., 812 F.2d 81 (3d Cir. 1987).
The two drawings, which describe possible configurations for a combined McDonald’s
restaurant and Amoco gas station on the Huang property, were relevant to the issue of
Amoco’s good faith in the performance of its obligations. Because the site plans were
originally drawn for McDonald’s Corporation by Andrew Moriarty of Bohler Engineering
at the request of McDonald’s and were stored in Bohler Engineering’s “McDonald’s” file,
4
Amoco did not know about these plans – nor did Amoco have possession, custody, or
control of these plans – until a meeting with Mr. Moriarty on April 4, 2002. Amoco
supplied Appellants with copies of the documents on April 9, 2002. Thus, we find that
the circumstances surrounding the creation and production of these documents that the
District Court’s refusal to preclude their admission was not an abuse of discretion.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court will be
affirmed.
_________________________
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing opinion.
/s/ Richard L. Nygaard
Circuit Judge
5