Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
51. How is the court likely to rule on the motions?
The jury returned a verdict for the employees, awarding less than the employees sought. The employees timely renewed their motion for judgment as a matter of law as to damages and, in the alternative, moved for a new trial claiming that the jury's award of damages was not supported by the evidence. The employer cross-moved for judgment as a matter of law.
Employees brought an action against their employer in federal court. The employees alleged that the employer failed to properly compensate the employees. At trial, before the case was submitted to the jury, the employees moved for judgment as a matter of law. In their motion, the employees specified the judgment they sought and the facts and law upon which they relied. The trial court denied the employees' motion.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
Under FRCP 50(a)(1), a party may make a motion for JMOL when the other party has been fully heard on an issue. In practice, this means that the defendant may move for a JMOL or directed verdict at the close of the plaintiff's case, and either party may move for a directed verdict after both sides have rested.
FRCP 50 also states the standard for granting a JMOL: If a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue, the court may:
(i) resolve the issue against the party; AND
(ii) grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against the party on a claim or defense that, under the controlling law, can be maintained or defeated only with a favorable finding on that issue.
FRCP 50 permits a judge to reserve judgment on a JMOL motion and submit the case to the jury. If the jury decides against the party who moved for judgment as a matter of law, the judge may then evaluate the legal sufficiency of the evidence on a renewed JMOL (previously known as a judgment notwithstanding the verdict). The most important aspect of making this kind of motion is that the movant must make the motion for JMOL before the case is submitted to the jury.
In federal practice, a motion for judgment as a matter of law may be combined with one for a new trial under FRCP 50. If the judge grants the JMOL motion, the judge must also rule conditionally on the new trial motion. Later, if the JMOL is reversed on appeal, the new trial will then occur automatically unless the appeals court specifies otherwise.
C is correct. A JMOL or a renewed JMOL motion may be granted if a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient basis to find for the nonmoving party. In contrast, a new trial may be granted if the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence, to correct an error, or because the verdict was excessive or inadequate.
Here, this is the answer choice that matches these correct standard and disposition for both motions. As to the employees' motion for JMOL, the court could have only granted it if it found that no reasonable jury would have had a legally sufficient basis for finding for the nonmoving party. The jury did not find for the nonmoving party (the employer) but found for the employees, only with a lower damages award than they had sought. As such, the court should then turn to the motion for a new trial, which should be denied if the jury verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. The facts state that the verdict was less than the employees sought but did not indicate that it was against the manifest weight of the evidence; absent such a showing, the court should also deny this motion.
A is incorrect. This answer confuses the standard for granting a directed verdict with the standard for granting a new trial. As explained above, a JMOL will be granted for the movant when the court concludes that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the nonmoving party. The jury found for the employees, the moving party, so the court should deny the JMOL motion and use the manifest weight of the evidence standard to rule on the motion for a new trial.
B is incorrect. The employer did not properly move for JMOL before the case was submitted to the jury, so the motion should be denied, not granted as indicated here. Moreover, this choice also misstates the standard for the motion; the proper standard is not «to prevent a miscarriage of justice,» but if the court concludes that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the nonmoving party.
D is incorrect. If the court were to find that no reasonable jury could have returned a verdict for less than the amount of damages sought in the initial motion for judgment as a matter of law, the appropriate remedy would be to grant the renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. It would not be appropriate for the court to grant the motion for a new trial.