Twigg v. BSN Sports, Inc., et al.

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

there can be no clear legal error for the failure of either the Court or the jury to apply a stipulation that does not exist. It is apparent to the Court that the text of the damages stipulation may not comport with the intentions of the Plaintiffs. They have made clear in their briefing on the present motion that they believe this stipulation established a fact saying essentially, if Defendant’s were found liable, the totals listed in the stipulation would be awarded by the jury.84 That is textually not what the stipulation states. “A consensual stipulation of the parties is to be interpreted according to the general principles of contract construction.”85 Here, there is no ambiguity as to what the contract means, and it is not ambiguous. After all, any mention of causation or relation to this incident in the stipulation makes clear that the stipulation does not take that issue off the table for the upcoming trial. Further, “[a] contract is not ambiguous merely because the parties disagree about its proper interpretation.”86 That appears to be what happened in this case. ... Bill of Costs All three parties have filed bills of cost in this case.107 Local Court Rule 54.3 sets out a specific procedure for how these bills are taxed.108 While this process does not require judicial approval before these costs can be taxed, I will provide a brief comment on how I believe these filings will generally progress, without attending to the details of the actual figures.109 On February 13, 2026, the Defendants in this case made a $950,000 offer of judgment to Plaintiffs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68.110 This offer was not accepted by Plaintiffs, and I have ...

Authorities cited in the passage: Rule 54.3 · Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68.110