![]() If the Court of Appeals AFFIRMS the district court’s grant of RJMOL, then Debbie keeps her victory.The court should conditionally grant the motion for new trial as well. Here, the judge believes that the disputed evidence was inadmissible hearsay and that it was prejudicial (not harmless error). She must also conditionally rule on the motion for new trial. However, the judge shouldn’t ignore the motion for a new trial. That will end the case and permit immediate appeal by Paul. If the judge believes that the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to support the jury’s verdict, then she should grant the motion for RJMOL. What may the court do?ĭiscussion: Regarding the motion for RJMOL, the court here (where a verdict was returned) may allow the judgment to stand, order a new trial, or direct entry of JMOL. After the jury finds for Paul, and before entry of judgment, Debbie moves for RJMOL (on the basis of insufficient evidence) and for a new trial (on the basis of inadmissible and prejudicial hearsay evidence). At the close of all the evidence, Debbie moves for JMOL on the basis of insufficient evidence such that no reasonable juror could find for Paul. During trial, Debbie objects to the submission of hearsay evidence. ![]() See question 6 for further explanation why.Ħ. The reason? More options for the trial judge, as well as more options for the court of appeals in case there is a timely appeal. Rule 50(b) expressly permits a person to either move for RJMOL alone, or to join a motion for new trial under Rule 59, or to request a new trial under Rule 59 in the alternative. Is this inconsistent motion practice?ĭiscussion: No, this is ok. The same day the court enters judgment for Paul, Debbie moves for a new trial and joins a motion for RJMOL. At the close of all the evidence, Debbie moves for JMOL, which is denied. The advisory comments make clear that in accordance with trends in caselaw (noted above), the amendment omitted any requirement that the 50(a) motion be made “at the literal close of all the evidence.”ĥ. The “at the close of all the evidence” language is gone. (Prior to the 2006 amendments, many courts liberalized their practice, “permit post-verdict motions for judgment despite the movant’s failure to reassert a previously made Rule 50(a) motion at the literal ‘’close of all the evidence.’” Moore ‘s Federal Practice § 50.40. Thus, under the pre-2006 Rule, if D moved for JMOL (DV) after P’s case in chief but not also at the “close of all the evidence,” D would be foreclosed from putting forth a renewed motion for JMOL (JNOV). This is because the pre-2006 version of Rule 50(b) had language requiring the predicate 50(a) motion to be made “at the close of all the evidence” as a precondition to a renewed motion under 50(b). Under the pre-2006 version of Rule 50, many courts held the answer was no. Within 10 days after entry of judgment, Debbie moves for RJMOL, asserting the same grounds in her earlier motion. The case is submitted to the jury and the jury finds for Paul. At the close of Paul’s case-in-chief, Debbie moves for JMOL on the basis that no reasonable juror could find for Paul. (For discussion of possible exceptions, see Moore’s Federal Practice § 50.43, available on Lexis.) Here, Debbie likely cannot raise new grounds in her RJMOL motion.Ĥ. Generally speaking, the grounds of a motion for RJMOL are limited to the grounds asserted in the earlier motion for JMOL. ![]() Motions for JMOL/RJMOL must specify the judgment sought and the law and facts that entitle the movant to the judgment. Two days after entry of judgment, Debbie moves for RJMOL, arguing that no reasonable juror could have found that Paul suffered any damages. The motion is denied and the jury later finds for Paul. At the close of all the evidence, Debbie moves for JMOL on the basis that she owes no duty to Paul. Rule 50(b) permits a renewed motion for JMOL (“RJMOL”), but requires that the movant have previously made a motion for JMOL during trial under 50(a).ģ. After the jury comes back with a verdict for Paul, Debbie moves for JMOL. Debbie, however, could move at this time because Paul has finished his case-in-chief.Ģ. Rule 50(a) does not permit Paul to move for JMOL yet because Debbie has not yet been fully heard on the issue of her negligence. After putting on his case-in-chief, Paul moves for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) under Rule 50(a). Assume that all questions stand on their own. Assume that all matters take place in federal court and that diversity jurisdiction is proper.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |