Filed: Mar. 09, 2005
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1790 JAMES K. ABCOUWER, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus NISOURCE, INCORPORATED, a foreign corporation, Defendant - Appellant, and NISOURCE CORPORATE SERVICES COMPANY, a foreign corporation; GARY L. NEALE, in his capacity as Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of NiSource, Incorporated, and unknown; JOHN DOES, representatives of NiSource Incorporated, in their official capacities, Defendants. No. 04-1855 JAMES K. AB
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1790 JAMES K. ABCOUWER, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus NISOURCE, INCORPORATED, a foreign corporation, Defendant - Appellant, and NISOURCE CORPORATE SERVICES COMPANY, a foreign corporation; GARY L. NEALE, in his capacity as Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of NiSource, Incorporated, and unknown; JOHN DOES, representatives of NiSource Incorporated, in their official capacities, Defendants. No. 04-1855 JAMES K. ABC..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1790
JAMES K. ABCOUWER,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
NISOURCE, INCORPORATED, a foreign corporation,
Defendant - Appellant,
and
NISOURCE CORPORATE SERVICES COMPANY, a foreign
corporation; GARY L. NEALE, in his capacity as
Chairman, President and Chief Executive
Officer of NiSource, Incorporated, and
unknown; JOHN DOES, representatives of
NiSource Incorporated, in their official
capacities,
Defendants.
No. 04-1855
JAMES K. ABCOUWER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
NISOURCE, INCORPORATED, a foreign corporation,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
NISOURCE CORPORATE SERVICES COMPANY, a foreign
corporation; GARY L. NEALE, in his capacity as
Chairman, President and Chief Executive
Officer of NiSource, Incorporated, and
unknown; JOHN DOES, representatives of
NiSource Incorporated, in their official
capacities,
Defendants.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin,
District Judge. (CA-01-1305-2)
Argued: February 2, 2005 Decided: March 9, 2005
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Earle Duncan Getchell, Jr., MCGUIREWOODS, L.L.P., Richmond,
Virginia, for NiSource, Incorporated. Robert Bernette Allen,
ALLEN, GUTHRIE, MCHUGH & THOMAS, P.L.L.C., Charleston, West
Virginia, for James K. Abcouwer. ON BRIEF: William H. Baxter, II,
Amy M. Pocklington, MCGUIREWOODS, L.L.P., Richmond, Virginia;
Timothy M. Miller, William E. Robinson, ROBINSON & MCELWEE,
P.L.L.C., Charleston, West Virginia, for NiSource, Incorporated.
Pamela C. Deem, Teresa K. Thompson, ALLEN, GUTHRIE, MCHUGH &
THOMAS, P.L.L.C., Charleston, West Virginia, for James K. Abcouwer.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
James K. Abcouwer sued his former employer, NiSource, Inc.,
seeking termination benefits under his employment contract.
Following a jury verdict in favor of Abcouwer, NiSource filed a
motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, a
new trial. The district court denied the motion. We affirm.
NiSource argues that no reasonable jury could find that
Abcouwer was entitled to termination benefits under the contract.
Shortly before Abcouwer’s termination, NiSource, a utilities
company, was involved in a series of complex mergers and
acquisitions involving several holding companies and another
utilities company. Under his contract, Abcouwer was not entitled
to termination benefits if he was a “participant in a group
effecting” the acquisition of NiSource. NiSource contends that
Abcouwer cannot recover termination benefits because Abcouwer was
a “participant in a group effecting” the acquisition as a matter of
law.*
We review de novo the district court's denial of NiSource's
Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law, viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to Abcouwer, the nonmoving
party. See Babcock v. BellSouth Adver. & Publ’g Corp., 348 F.3d
*
Because we conclude that a reasonable jury could have found
that Abcouwer was not a “participant in a group effecting” the
acquisition, we need not determine the separate issue of whether
NiSource was actually acquired.
3
73, 76 (4th Cir. 2003). Judgment as a matter of law is appropriate
after trial only when "there is no legally sufficient evidentiary
basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue."
Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1).
We conclude that there was a legally sufficient basis for the
jury to find that Abcouwer was not a “participant in a group
effecting” the acquisition of NiSource. The district court found
this phrase to be unambiguous, and neither party has appealed that
determination. The district court instructed the jury to give the
words “participant,” “group,” and “effecting” their plain and
ordinary meanings. It was proper for the court to allow the jury
to determine whether Abcouwer was a “participant in a group
effecting” the acquisition based on the facts presented at trial.
Although the evidence showed that Abcouwer performed certain tasks
assigned to him by his superiors at NiSource, the jury could have
reasonably concluded that he was not a member of the select group
of top executives that actually planned and effected the
acquisition.
NiSource also argues that the district abused its discretion
by improperly instructing the jury. We have reviewed the jury
instruction in question and find no abuse of discretion. See
Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo,
174 F.3d 394, 408 (4th Cir. 1999) (“We
review challenges to jury instructions for abuse of discretion.
The test of the adequacy of jury instructions is whether the jury
4
charge, construed as a whole, adequately states the controlling
legal principle without misleading or confusing the jury”).
Because we conclude that there was a legally sufficient basis
for the jury’s verdict and find no abuse of discretion in the jury
instructions, we affirm the district court’s denial of NiSource’s
motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for
new trial.
AFFIRMED
5