Vazquez-Valentin v. Santiago-Diaz, No. 03-1949. On a GVR after Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 126 S. Ct. 980 (2006), which established that “a party ‘may not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal on the basis of the District Court's denial of itsmotion ‘alone’” the First Circuit vacates a JMOL (for insufficiency of the plaintiffs evidence) in favor of the defendants. In this political discrimination case, various documents were excluded by the District Court as hearsay, and excluding them, the court determined was not harmless. But in that earlier appeal, the First had not reached the evidentiary issues because it had focused on the sufficiency of the evidence, despite despite the defendants' failure to preserve that ground of appeal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b). So, this time it addresses the hearsay issues, and concludes that the court erroneously excluded various documents on hearsay grounds, and remands. But, the First orders the District Court to reconsider the qualified immunity issue.
The First does explain what a GVR is:
Supreme Court orders of this type, colloquially termed "GVRs," meaning "granted, vacated, and remanded," do not resolve a case... Rather, they tell us that we misapprehended the law when we entered the judgment now vacated, and that we must reconsider the case now remanded to us in light of the Supreme Court's opinion. Id. Sometimes, despite the intervening precedent, we will enter the same judgment because, after due consideration, we conclude that the new precedent does not require a different outcome....Other times, the intervening precedent will result in a different outcome.
Comments