2. Nominal Damages and Disgorgement of Fees JPSA also argues that it was entitled to at least nominal damages and disgorgement of attorney fees, because the jury found that Defendants had breached their duty to JPSA in several respects. As the district court noted, however, JPSA did not argue that it was entitled to such damages until after the jury had returned its verdict. JPSA did not raise those issues to the jury, did not request a jury instruction on nominal damages or disgorgement of fees, and did not request or obtain any interrogatories in the special verdict form to address either measure of damages. JPSA is not entitled to a new trial based on theories that it failed to present to the jury in its first trial. See Kelly v. City of Oakland, 198 F.3d 779, 785 (9th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). 3. Inconsistency in the Jury’s Verdict JPSA
holding that rule 59 motion for new trial was procedurally allowable even in case where no trial had yet been held holding that criminal defendant was not entitled to a jury trial on the issue of restitution under the oregon vehicle code holding that the failure to properly instruct the jury on the burden of proof required a new trial holding that the movant was not entitled to new trial under rule 59 based on a defense which if properly placed in issue would have affected the course of the jury trial holding new trial should not have been granted because jury was properly instructed