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.
62. Is the court likely to consider the renewed JMOL motion on the merits?
Five weeks after the court entered judgment on the verdict, the defendant filed a renewed motion for JMOL. One week after that motion was filed, the parties filed a stipulation agreeing to extend the time to file and respond to posttrial motions. In the stipulation, the defendant acknowledged that it had filed its renewed JMOL motion late, citing computer difficulties relating to an office move. The plaintiff has acknowledged that it suffered no prejudice as a result of the late renewal motion but opposes it.
After a lengthy federal trial, the defendant moved for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL). The court denied the motion and sent the case to the jury, which returned a verdict for the plaintiff and awarded damages.
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
B is incorrect. Whether «good cause» was or was not shown is immaterial; FRCP 6(b)(2) prohibits any extensions of time for filing motions for judgment as a matter of law.
C is incorrect. Although the factors mentioned might be relevant to finding good cause to extend time limits generally, they are irrelevant here because FRCP 6(b)(2) prohibits any extensions of time for filing motions for judgment as a matter of law.
D is incorrect. Rule 6(b)(2) prohibits any extensions of time for filing motions for judgment as a matter of law, and provides no exceptions, even if, the parties agree to alter that prohibition.