A jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant believes that the jury's verdict was based on insufficient evidence and that no reasonable jury could have reached that conclusion. The defendant had previously filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) at the close of all the evidence. What is the most appropriate motion for the defendant to file following the jury's verdict?
- AMotion to alter or amend a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
- BMotion for relief from a judgment or order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60.
- CMotion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59.
- DRenewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b).
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: D. Renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b).
A renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law (RJML), formerly known as JNOV (judgment notwithstanding the verdict), can only be filed if a party previously moved for JMOL under Rule 50(a) at an appropriate time during trial (e.g., close of all evidence). It allows the court to overturn a jury verdict if it finds that no reasonable jury could have found for the non-moving party.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. A Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend a judgment is typically used to correct manifest errors of law or fact, or to present newly discovered evidence, not to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence underlying a jury's verdict in the same way as an RJML.
- B. A Rule 60 motion for relief from a judgment or order addresses extraordinary circumstances like mistake, inadvertence, fraud, or newly discovered evidence, not simply the insufficiency of evidence supporting a jury's verdict.
- C. A motion for a new trial (Rule 59) is also a post-verdict motion, but it asks for a new trial, not for the court to enter judgment contrary to the verdict based on insufficient evidence (unless the verdict was against the 'great weight' of the evidence). The scenario specifically points to a lack of *reasonable* evidentiary basis, which is the core of RJML.
Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (RJML) (Rule 50(b))
A post-verdict motion that allows a party who previously moved for JMOL during trial to renew that motion, asking the court to set aside the jury's verdict and enter judgment for the movant, if no reasonable jury could have reached the verdict based on the evidence.
- Must have filed a Rule 50(a) JMOL motion during trial to preserve the right to file a Rule 50(b) motion.
- Must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment.
- Challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence *after* the verdict.
Memory trick: After the 'Verdict', you can 'Renew' your 'Judgment' or ask for a 'New' start.