By Reynolds Hutchins
reynolds.hutchins@insidebiz.com
It's become a waiting game.
More than a month ago, a Norfolk jury found Virginia International Terminals, the operating arm of the state port, conspired with an employee of a family-owned company to divert business to him and another firm.
There were three unanimous counts against VIT. There were punitive damages to be awarded.
But, more than a month later, nothing.
Circuit Judge Karen J. Burrell, who heard the case, has yet to produce a final order. And as of last week, the jury's verdict was still "under advisement."
"We haven't heard anything," said Woody Ball, who owns Virginia Beach-based Tidewater Overhead Door Inc. with his wife, Michelle.
And according to legal experts, they could be waiting months before they ever do.
The courtroom drama between Woody Ball's business and the port's operating arm dates back to 2010.
Ball alleged in his suit that VIT had hired Tidewater Overhead Door to design and install a prototype for a water-barrier device on one of 25 storage doors at the Newport News Marine Terminal.
If approved, Ball said, the device would be installed on the other 24 doors.
Tidewater assigned primary responsibility for the project to an unnamed employee, who successfully completed the project and won approval from VIT.
But, court records report that at about the time the prototype was demonstrated, the unnamed employee learned "that there was an undisclosed 'problem' with Tidewater Overhead Door's bid on the Newport News project."
Ball said he was told his price was too high. He disagreed.
Ball's lawsuit alleges the unnamed employee proceeded to give confidential business information about the project to his family relations who used the proprietary information to steal the business from Tidewater Overhead Door.
Ball maintains that he believes VIT encouraged the employee's behavior and that the employee continued to work for Tidewater while secretly involved with a competing firm.
A jury sided with the Balls in October and awarded them punitive damages.
But Judge Burrell has not issued an order.
And there's no way of knowing when she will, said Benjamin Spencer, Earle K. Shawe Professor of Law at the University of Virginia and an expert in civil procedure.
"I'm not familiar with there being any time limit on the judge," Spencer said earlier this month. "I've seen cases where the judge kept the case under advisement for several months."
Spencer said judges have been known to reject a jury's verdict for any number of reasons.
There could have been evidence that was inappropriately admitted or the judge could conclude that there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict.
"If that's the case, the judge could set aside the verdict and order a new trial," Spencer said.
If the jury's verdict is contrary to the evidence and the court has enough evidence before it to decide the case on the merits, Spencer said, Burrell could set aside the verdict and enter a judgment of her own, notwithstanding the jurors' decision.
Burrell could also pursue what is known as a remittitur.
"If the judge believes that the verdict awarded excessive damages," Spencer said, "the judge has the authority to make the plaintiff accept a lower amount or face a new trial."
None of those are definitive answers and all are within the realm of possibilities, Spencer said.
"Although," he said, "I'd surmise that the fact that the judge took a verdict for the plaintiff under advisement bodes better for the defendant."
That could mean trouble for the Balls and their business.
Ball said it has been a demanding and financially exhaustive trial.
As his personal funds start to run short, Ball said he doesn't know what he'll do if the judge doesn't side with the jurors' verdict.
"We'll be prepared to mortgage my house if we have to," Ball said.