## Facts

- Byron Jordan claimed that, while Prince George’s County police officers were arresting him at Iverson Mall, two mall security guards punched him in the face.
- Jordan sued Prince George’s County and related police defendants, Iverson Mall Limited Partnership (IMLP), and the mall’s security contractor, Professional 50 States Protection of DC LLC (Pro50), asserting state-law battery (and also pursuing a § 1983 bystander-liability theory against the County).
- At trial, Jordan’s wife testified that she saw two Pro50 security guards punch Jordan; she described them and identified photos of the guards, but she could not provide their names.
- One Pro50 guard testified that he and another Pro50 guard confronted Jordan during the incident, but he denied that either guard punched Jordan.
- During Jordan’s case-in-chief, IMLP and Pro50 moved for judgment as a matter of law, arguing that Jordan had not presented legally sufficient evidence that the assailants were their employees/agents, or (as to IMLP) even that IMLP owned Iverson Mall.
- The jury found Pro50 and IMLP liable for battery and awarded damages against them, but found no liability against the County and police defendants.
- After the verdict, Pro50 and IMLP renewed their motion for judgment as a matter of law. Defendants also sought severe sanctions (default judgment/dismissal) based on alleged pretrial noncompliance involving preparation of the proposed pretrial order.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs’ pretrial noncompliance justified the extreme sanction of default judgment for defendants or dismissal with prejudice.
2. Whether the trial evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find Pro50 liable for battery based on proof that the alleged assailants were Pro50 guards acting in the course of their work.
3. Whether the trial evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find IMLP liable for battery where plaintiffs did not present evidence that IMLP owned the mall or that the guards were IMLP’s employees/agents.

## Decision

- The court denied defendants’ motion for sanctions seeking default judgment or dismissal with prejudice.
- The court denied Pro50’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and left the jury’s liability and damages verdict against Pro50 in place.
- The court granted IMLP’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, set aside the jury’s verdict against IMLP, and entered judgment for IMLP.
- The defense verdict for the County/police defendants was not disturbed.

## Legal Principles

- Judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50 is appropriate only when, viewing the evidence and reasonable inferences in the nonmovant’s favor, a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for that party on an essential element.
- A plaintiff may prove the identity of an alleged tortfeasor and the tortfeasor’s employment relationship through direct testimony and reasonable inferences from the trial record; named identification is not always required if the evidence supports who the actors were.
- Vicarious liability requires proof connecting the tortfeasor to the defendant through an employer–employee or agency relationship and (for respondeat superior) that the tort occurred within the scope of that relationship.
- A verdict against a specific legal entity cannot stand where the record lacks proof that the entity owned or operated the relevant premises or otherwise had the required relationship to the alleged actors; references to the mall by its common name are not, by themselves, proof of ownership by the named defendant entity.
- Default judgment or dismissal with prejudice is an extraordinary sanction and generally requires a strong showing of misconduct and prejudice; lesser remedies are favored when the record does not justify a terminal sanction.

## Conclusion

The court refused to impose default-judgment or dismissal sanctions for pretrial missteps, but it split the post-verdict Rule 50 relief: it upheld the jury’s battery verdict against Pro50 because the evidence allowed a reasonable finding that Pro50 guards struck Jordan, while it vacated the verdict against IMLP because plaintiffs presented no trial evidence that IMLP owned the mall or that the guards were IMLP’s employees or agents.


Jordan v. Iverson Mall Ltd. Partnership, 2018 WL 2391999 (2018)