504: Listen and Learn -- Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Motions for New Trial (Civ Pro)

Welcome back to the Law School Toolbox podcast! In this week's episode, we're focusing on a topic from Civil Procedure -- specifically, motions for judgment as a matter of law and motions for new trial, where the moving party is asking the court to take certain issues away from the jury.

In this episode we discuss:

• The two types of motions for judgment as a matter of law
• The standard for granting a motion for judgment as a matter of law
• Filing and granting motions for new trial
• Analyzing a hypo encompassing the above concepts

Resources:

• "Listen and Learn" series (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/law-school-toolbox-podcast-substantive-law-topics/#listen-learn)
• Podcast Episode 412: Listen and Learn – Motions for Summary Judgment (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/podcast-episode-412-listen-and-learn-motions-for-summary-judgment/)

Download the Transcript 
(https://lawschooltoolbox.com/episode-504-listen-and-learn-motions-for-judgment-as-a-matter-of-law-and-motions-for-new-trial-civ-pro/)

If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/law-school-toolbox-podcast/id1027603976) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Law School Toolbox website (http://lawschooltoolbox.com/contact). If you're concerned about the bar exam, check out our sister site, the Bar Exam Toolbox (http://barexamtoolbox.com/). You can also sign up for our weekly podcast newsletter (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/get-law-school-podcast-updates/) to make sure you never miss an episode!

Thanks for listening!

Alison & Lee

Episode Transcript

Lee Burgess (00:01):
Welcome back to the Law School Toolbox podcast.
Today, as part of our “Listen and Learn”series, we’re discussing Civil Procedure
– specifically, motions for judgment as amatter of law and motions for new trial.
Your Law School Toolbox hosts are AlisonMonahan and Lee Burgess, that's me.
We are here to demystify the lawschool and early legal career
experience, so you'll be the bestlaw student and lawyer you can be.

(00:24):
We're the co-creators of the Law SchoolToolbox, the Bar Exam Toolbox and the
career-related website CareerDicta.
Alison also runs TheGirl's Guide to Law School.
If you enjoy the show, pleaseleave a review or rating on
your favorite listening app.
And if you have any questions,don't hesitate to reach out to us.
You can reach us via the contactform on LawSchoolToolbox.com.
And we'd love to hear from you.
And with that, let's get started.

(00:56):
Hello, and welcome back to the“Listen and Learn” series Today,
we’re discussing Civil Procedure, andspecifically motions for judgment as a
matter of law and motions for new trial.
These are two motions where themoving party is asking the court to
take certain issues away from a jury.
Let’s begin with motions for judgmentas a matter of law, which are governed

(01:18):
by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50.
A motion for judgment as a matterof law asks a court to take an
issue away from the jury and insteadrule on it as a matter of law.
There are actually two types of motionsfor judgment as a matter of law.
The first kind is a motion forjudgment as a matter of law under

(01:38):
Rule 50[a], and this used to be calleda motion for a directed verdict.
The second kind is a motion forjudgment as a matter of law under Rule
50[b] and this used to be called amotion for a judgment notwithstanding
the verdict, or “JNOV” for short.
We tell you the former names for thesetwo motions because some states still call

(02:01):
these types of motions by those names.
The primary difference betweena Rule 50[a] and a Rule 50[b]
motion for judgment as a matter oflaw is the timing of the motion.
A Rule 50[a] motion is made duringa jury trial, and a Rule 50[b]
motion is made after a jury trial.

(02:22):
Specifically, a Rule 50[a] motionmay be made during a trial after the
non-moving party has been fully heardon the relevant issue, but before the
case has been submitted to the jury.
In order to gain a better understandingof the timing of a Rule 50[a]
motion, let’s briefly discussthe mechanics of a jury trial.

(02:43):
At trial, the plaintiff presents itscase to the jury first, and the defendant
then presents its case to the jury.
And after both sides have presentedtheir case, the case is then
submitted to the jury for a verdict.
That means that under Rule 50[a], adefendant is able to move for judgment
as a matter of law at an earlier timethan a plaintiff because a defendant

(03:06):
can move under Rule 50[a] as soon as theplaintiff has closed its case and before
the defendant has presented its case.
In contrast, a plaintiff needsto wait until the defendant
has closed its case before theplaintiff can move under Rule 50[a].
Once the defendant has finished itscase, the plaintiff can move for

(03:26):
judgment as a matter of law under Rule50[a], and the defendant can also move
under Rule 50[a] at that time as well.
This means that a defendant can actuallymove for judgment as a matter of law
under Rule 50[a] twice during a trial– first, after the close of the plaintiff’s
case and again after the close of itscase – whereas a plaintiff can only

(03:51):
move under Rule 50[a] once – only afterthe close of the defendant’s case.
a Rule 50[b] motion is made aftera jury trial; generally, within 28
days after the entry of a judgment.
Importantly, the filing of a Rule50[a] motion for judgment as a matter
of law during the jury trial is aprerequisite to the filing of a

(04:15):
Rule 50[b] motion following the trial.
That is why a Rule 50[b] motion isoften referred to as a “renewed”
motion for judgment as a matter of law.
If a party moves for judgment as a matterof law under Rule 50[b] on a certain
issue, and that issue was not raisedvia an earlier filed motion for judgment

(04:36):
as a matter of law under Rule 50[a],the court will not consider the issue.
Now that we have discussed the timingand procedural requirements of motions
for judgment as a matter of law, let’sturn to the standard for deciding
motions for judgment as a matter of law.
The standard for granting a motion forjudgment as a matter of law is the same

(05:00):
regardless of whether the motion wasmade under Rule Rule 50[a or Rule 50[b].
The standard is that the motion shouldonly be granted if upon the undisputed
evidence presented at trial, the movant isentitled to judgment as a matter of law.
In other words, it should begranted only if no reasonable jury

(05:22):
could find for the non-movant.
In making this assessment, the courtmust review all the evidence in the
record and draw all reasonable inferencesin the favor of the nonmoving party.
The Court may not weigh the evidenceor make credibility determinations.
It is important to note that this is theexact same standard as the standard for

(05:44):
deciding a motion for summary judgment.
For a detailed discussion of motionsfor summary judgment, please listen to
our terrific Listen and Learn podcast onmotions for summary judgment -- Episode
412 of the Law School Toolbox podcast.
This completes our discussion of motionsfor judgment as a matter of law for now.
Let’s now turn to motions for anew trial, which are governed by

(06:08):
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59.
Unlike motions for judgment as a matter oflaw where the movant is asking the court
to take an issue away from the jury andenter a judgment in its favor on a certain
issue, a motion for a new trial asks thecourt for a re-do – to retry the issues
before a new jury and get a new verdict.

(06:28):
A motion for a new trialmust be filed within 28 days
after the entry of judgment.
There are generally threesituations where a court will
grant a motion for a new trial.
The first is when the jury’s verdict isagainst the clear weight of the evidence.
In making this assessment, a court ispermitted to weigh the evidence and

(06:49):
assess the credibility of witnesses.
This is an important distinctionthat renders motions for a new
trial different than motions fora judgment as a matter of law.
Remember, in assessing a motion forjudgment as a matter of law, the
court cannot weigh the evidence ormake credibility determinations.
But in assessing whether the jury’sverdict is against the clear weight

(07:11):
of the evidence, a court must respectthe collective wisdom of the jury.
A court cannot grant a new trialsimply because it would have
reached a different verdict.
The second situation where a courtwill grant a motion for a new trial is
where there was a legal or proceduralerror that occurred during the trial
that rendered the trial unfair.

(07:31):
An example of such an error is whenthe jury’s verdict was based on false
evidence or perjurious testimony.
Another example of such an erroris when there was prejudicial
misconduct by one of the jurors.
The third situation where a courtwill grant a motion for a new trial
is where there is newly discoveredevidence that would have materially

(07:52):
altered the outcome of the trial.
But the new evidence must truly be new.
It must be evidence that could nothave previously been discovered with
due diligence in time for the trial.
Furthermore, it is important to notethat even when a party is entitled
to a new trial for one of the reasonsabove, a court does not need to
grant a new trial on all issues.

(08:15):
A new trial can be granted foronly one claim or for a trial on
just the damages of one claim.
Okay now that we have made it through thebasics of both motions for judgment as a
matter of law and motions for new trial,let’s test our understanding with a hypo.
"Plaintiff Peter was a guest at DefendantHotel D. While having breakfast at the

(08:38):
hotel one morning, one of Hotel D’semployees was pouring Peter some coffee,
and the coffee dispenser malfunctioned,causing hot coffee to spill onto Peter.
Peter suffered burn injuries asa result of the coffee spill.
Plaintiff Peter sued HotelD in federal district court
alleging a claim for negligence.
The case eventually wentto trial before a jury.

(09:00):
During voir dire, the district judgeasked each potential juror whether
they had any prior experiences withHotel D. None of the prospective
jurors answered 'yes' to that question.
At trial, Plaintiff Peter presented hisevidence to support his negligence claim.
The evidence consisted of Peter’sown testimony regarding the events
of the morning when the coffee spilloccurred and the medical bills he

(09:23):
incurred as a result of the burninjuries he suffered from the spill.
In addition, Peter presented testimonyfrom an expert who opined that Hotel D
inadequately trained its staff in howto properly serve hot coffee and also
opined that Hotel D served the coffeeat an unreasonably hot temperature.
At the close of Plaintiff Peter’sevidence, Hotel D moved for judgment

(09:47):
as a matter of law under Rule 50[a].
The district court denied the motion.
Hotel D then presented its own evidence,which included testimony from its own
expert, who opined that Hotel D’s trainingof its staff was adequate and proper,
that the coffee was served at a reasonabletemperature in compliance with industry

(10:07):
standards, and that the malfunctioningof the coffee dispenser was unexpected.
In addition, Hotel D presented testimonyfrom its employees, stating that they
followed all the necessary protocolsand precautions that morning, including
examining the coffee dispenser forany possible issues prior to use.
At the close of all evidence,neither party made any motions.

(10:29):
The case was then submitted to the jury.
And the jury returned a verdict in favorof Peter on his claim for negligence and
awarded him damages for his burn injuries.
Five days after the entry ofjudgment, Hotel D learned for the
first time that the jury forepersonpreviously stayed at Hotel D and
had a bad experience with the staff.

(10:51):
Upon being selected to be a jurorin the case, the foreperson told

a friend (10:54):
'I hate Hotel D. There is no way I am reaching a verdict
in its favor in this case!'
Twenty-five days after the entry ofjudgment, Hotel D moved for judgment
as a matter of law under Rule 50[b] or,in the alternative, for a new trial.
Hotel D made two arguments in its motions.

(11:15):
First, Hotel D argued that the evidence itpresented at trial regarding its alleged
negligence was more persuasive and morecredible than Plaintiff Peter’s evidence.
Second, Hotel D argued that a new trial isrequired because of the jury foreperson’s
failure to disclose during voir direhis prior bad experience with Hotel D

(11:37):
and his feelings towards the hotel."
Our first question regardingthis hypo is: Was Hotel D’s Rule
50[b] motion for judgment as amatter of law procedurally proper?
The answer is "yes".
In order to make a Rule 50[b] motionfor judgment as a matter of law, the
party needs to have previously madea Rule 50[a] motion for judgment as

(12:00):
a matter of law during the trial.
Here, Hotel D did make a Rule 50[a]motion after the close of Plaintiff’s
evidence during the trial, so Hotel D hassatisfied that procedural requirement.
In addition, a Rule 50[b] motionmust generally be made within 28
days after the entry of judgment.
Here, Hotel D moved under Rule 50[b] 25days after the court’s entry of judgment,

(12:25):
so Hotel D also satisfied the timingrequirement for a Rule 50[b] motion.
Turning to the next question regardingHotel D’s Rule 50[b] motion for judgment

as a matter law (12:37):
Assuming the court agreed with Hotel D that its evidence was more
credible and persuasive than Peter’sevidence on the issue of negligence,
should the court grant the motion?
The answer is "no".
In assessing the motion forjudgment as a matter of law, a
court cannot weigh the evidence ormake credibility determinations.

(12:58):
Therefore, Hotel D’s argument that itsevidence was more persuasive and credible
does not provide the court with a properbasis for overturning a jury verdict via
a motion for judgment as a matter of law.
A motion for judgment as a matter oflaw may only be granted if no reasonable
jury could find for the non-moving party.

(13:19):
At trial, Plaintiff Peter, the non-movingparty, presented evidence from his
expert opining that Hotel D’s trainingwas inadequate and that the coffee was
served at an unreasonably hot temperature.
As such, there was sufficient evidencefor a reasonable jury to find in his
favor on the issue of negligence,and Hotel D’s motion for judgment

(13:41):
as a matter of law should be denied.
Turning to Hotel D’s motion for a newtrial, the next question is: Assuming
the court agreed with Hotel D thatits evidence was more credible and
persuasive than Peter’s evidence on theissue of negligence should the court
grant Hotel D’s motion for new trial?

(14:02):
The answer is, "probably not".
In assessing a motion for a new trial, thecourt is permitted to weigh the evidence
and assess the credibility of witnesses.
But a court may only grant a motion fora new trial if the jury’s verdict is
against the clear weight of the evidence.
A court cannot grant a new trialsimply because it would have
reached a different verdict.

(14:22):
Here, the issue of negligence was highlydisputed with both parties presenting
competing expert testimony to the jury.
Therefore, the district court would not beable to hold that the jury’s verdict was
against the clear weight of the evidenceeven if it found Hotel D’s evidence to
be more persuasive than Peter’s evidence.

Finally, our last question is (14:41):
Should the district court grant Hotel D’s
motion for a new trial based on the juryforeperson’s failure to disclose during
voir dire his feelings towards Hotel D?
The answer is "yes".
A court may grant a motion for anew trial when there is a legal or
procedural error that occurred duringthe trial that rendered the trial unfair.

(15:05):
An example of such an erroris when there was prejudicial
misconduct by one of the jurors.
In this case, the jury forepersonfailed to properly disclose his actual
bias against Hotel D. And given thejuror’s statement that there is no
way he would reach a verdict in favorof Hotel D, Hotel D was prejudiced by

(15:26):
the juror’s failure to disclose hisbias, and it rendered the trial unfair.
And that wraps up our discussionof motions for judgment as a matter
of law and motions for new trial.
Hopefully you found these hyposhelpful examples of how to work
through any motions for judgmentas a matter of law or motions for
new trial questions on your exams.

(15:49):
If you enjoyed this episode of theLaw School Toolbox podcast, please
take a second to leave a review andrating on your favorite listening app.
We'd really appreciate it.
And be sure to subscribeso you don't miss anything.
If you have any questions orcomments, please don't hesitate
to reach out to myself or Alisonat [e-mail] or
[e-mail].

(16:09):
Or you can always contactus via our website contact
form at LawSchoolToolbox.com.
Thanks for listening, and we’ll talk soon!