Mark v. Shoen, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Leonard Samuel Shoen and Carol Shoen; Michael L. Shoen Andchrista G. Shoen, Defendants-appellees.edward J. Shoen, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Leonard Samuel Shoen, et Ux., et al., Defendants-appellees.mark v. Shoen, Edward J. Shoen, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Leonard Samuel Shoen, Husband; Carol Shoen, Wife; Michaell. Shoen, Husband; Crista G. Shoen, Wife,defendants-appellees, 113 F.3d 1242 (9th Cir. 1997)

Before: TROTT, NOONAN, Circuit Judges, and MOSKOWITZ^* , District Judge.

ORDER^** 

Mark Shoen and Edward Shoen appeal the district court's judgment, following a jury trial, in favor of the defendants in their defamation action. They also appeal the district court's order denying their motion for relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

Mark Shoen and Edward Shoen argue that the jury may not have returned a unanimous defense verdict. The jury announced in a note to the court that it had reached a unanimous verdict, and the court polled the jurors individually to confirm unanimity. Although it would be possible for a logician to create an ambiguity in the jury's responses on the verdict forms--forms accepted by both sides without objection--it would defy common sense to conclude that the jury finding of zero damages is consistent with any verdict except a verdict for the defendants.

Mark Shoen and Edward Shoen argue that they were not limited purpose public figures. The jury's verdict of no damages, no false statements and no malice moots their argument that they were not limited purpose public figures. Even as private figures they could not recover for a true statement. Without malice they could not recover punitive damages.

The district court's judgment and order are AFFIRMED.