DUK v. MGM GRAND HOTEL, INC. Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A court has discretion to resubmit an inconsistent special verdict to the jury for clarification, even if it violates a “stop here” instruction. The court abused its discretion by later ordering a new trial when the jury’s corrected verdict was reconcilable as a product of redeliberation.
Legal Significance: A district court may resubmit an inconsistent special verdict for clarification when the jury is still available, establishing this as a preferable alternative to declaring surplusage or ordering a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 49(a).
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiff Fernando Duk sued MGM Grand Hotel for negligence after suffering a heart attack while in MGM’s custody. In the first trial, the jury used a special verdict form based on Nevada’s comparative negligence statute, which bars recovery if a plaintiff is more than 50% at fault. The form instructed the jury that if it found the plaintiff more than 50% negligent, it should stop and sign the verdict. The jury returned its first verdict finding Duk 65% negligent but, in violation of the instruction, proceeded to award him $3.3 million in damages. Noticing the inconsistency before discharging the jury, the trial judge resubmitted the verdict form and instructed the jurors to “continue [their] deliberations.” The jury returned a second verdict twenty minutes later, finding MGM 51% negligent and Duk 49% negligent, while keeping the $3.3 million damages award unchanged. The district court, believing the second verdict was an improper “manipulation,” granted MGM’s motion for a new trial. The second trial resulted in a verdict for MGM. Duk appealed the order granting a new trial.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the district court abuse its discretion by ordering a new trial after a jury, upon resubmission of an inconsistent special verdict, returned a second, internally consistent verdict that altered the apportionment of liability but kept the damages award the same?
Yes. The district court did not abuse its discretion in resubmitting the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolo
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Did the district court abuse its discretion by ordering a new trial after a jury, upon resubmission of an inconsistent special verdict, returned a second, internally consistent verdict that altered the apportionment of liability but kept the damages award the same?
Conclusion
This case confirms a district court's discretion to use resubmission to cure Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullam
Legal Rule
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 49(a), a district court has the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non p
Legal Analysis
The Ninth Circuit first addressed the propriety of resubmitting the inconsistent special Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ulla
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A district court has discretion to resubmit an inconsistent special verdict