Assume that all matters take place in federal court and that diversity jurisdiction is proper. Assume that all questions stand on their own.
Answers will be available after we complete our studies of these materials.
JMOL
1. Motion for JMOL. Paul sues Debbie for negligence. After putting on his case-in-chief, Paul moves for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) under Rule 50(a). May he?
2. Renewed motion for JMOL. Paul sues Debbie for negligence. After the jury comes back with a verdict for Paul, Debbie moves for JMOL. May she?
3. Grounds for RJMOL. Paul sues Debbie for negligence. At the close of all the evidence, Debbie moves for JMOL on the basis that she owes no duty to Paul. The motion is denied and the jury later finds for Paul. Two days after entry of judgment, Debbie moves for RJMOL, arguing that no reasonable juror could have found that Paul suffered any damages. May she?
4. Close of all the evidence. Paul sues Debbie for negligence. At the close of Paul’s case-in-chief, Debbie moves for JMOL on the basis that no reasonable juror could find for Paul. The court denies the motion. Debbie then puts on her defense. The case is submitted to the jury and the jury finds for Paul. Within 10 days after entry of judgment, Debbie moves for RJMOL, asserting the same grounds in her earlier motion. May she?
5. Motion for new trial, too. Paul sues Debbie for negligence. At the close of all the evidence, Debbie moves for JMOL, which is denied. The jury finds for Paul. The same day the court enters judgment for Paul, Debbie moves for a new trial and joins a motion for RJMOL. Is this inconsistent motion practice?
6. Two motions, what to do. Paul sues Debbie for negligence. During trial, Debbie objects to the submission of hearsay evidence. The objection is denied. 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. That motion is denied. 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). The court agrees with both motions. What may the court do?
Motion for New Trial
7. Standards. The district court is faced with motions for RJMOL and for a new trial. What are the standards?
8. Remittitur. Debbie runs over Paul’s big toe. Paul is wearing a steel boot and suffers minor injuries. He has no loss of wages and no mental anguish. He sues Debbie for negligence. The jury awards Paul $1 million. Debbie moves for a new trial on the basis of excessive damages. The judge believes that the facts support the finding of negligence but nevertheless finds the verdict shockingly excessive. Can the judge do anything short of granting a new trial on damages?
9. Additur. Debbie runs over Paul’s big toe, crushing it beyond medical repair. Paul was a professional football player who won the Superbowl MVP award, but unfortunately, the injury ended his career. Paul has also suffered tremendous emotional harm and has difficulty getting new work. He sues Debbie for negligence. The jury finds for Paul, but unbelievably, awards him only $10,000. Paul moves for a new trial on the issue of damages. The judge finds the damages award to be shockingly low. May the court order a conditional new trial on damages unless Debbie agrees to increase the damages to $50,000,000?
Posted Mar. 28, 2015; link to answers added April 13, 2015