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

We’re the co-creators of the Law School Toolbox, the Bar Exam Toolbox, and the career-related website CareerDicta. Alison also runs The Girl’s Guide to Law School. If you enjoy the show, please leave a review on your favorite listening app, and check out our sister podcast, the Law School Toolbox podcast. If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to reach out to us. You can reach us via the contact form on BarExamToolbox.com, and we’d love to hear from you. And with that, let’s get started.

Hello, and welcome back to the “Listen and Learn” series. Before we get started, I want to take a moment to thank our sponsor for this podcast and share how you can elevate your bar exam prep with SpacedRepetition.com. If you caught episode 244 on the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast, you know why this isn't just any study method -- this platform harnesses advanced cognitive science to dramatically increase your memory retention. I strongly recommend trying it so you see the difference for yourself.

It's only $99, and you even get a full week to decide if it's for you before you pay a penny! And for our Toolbox listeners, here's an extra advantage. Get an exclusive 15% off the "Boost Deck", the essential tool for bar candidates. Just use the code TOOLBOX in all caps when you check out on SpacedRepetition.com. Try it. Today, we’re discussing Civil Procedure, and specifically, motions for judgment as a matter of law and motions for new trial.

These are two motions where the moving party is asking the court to take certain issues away from a jury. Let’s begin with motions for judgment as a matter of law, which are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50. A motion for judgment as a matter of law asks a court to take an issue away from the jury and instead rule on it as a matter of law. There are actually two types of motions for judgment as a matter of law.

The first kind is a motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50[a], and this used to be called a motion for a directed verdict. The second kind is a motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50[b], and this used to be called a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or JNOV for short. We tell you the former names for these two motions because some states still call these types of motions by those names.

The primary difference between a Rule 50[a] and a Rule 50[b] motion for judgment as a matter of law is the timing of the motion. A Rule 50[a] motion is made during a jury trial, and a Rule 50[b] motion is made after a jury trial. Specifically, a Rule 50[a] motion may be made during a trial after the non-moving party has been fully heard on the relevant issue, but before the case has been submitted to the jury.

In order to gain a better understanding of the timing of a Rule 50[a] motion, let’s briefly discuss the mechanics of a jury trial. At trial, the plaintiff presents its case to the jury first, and the defendant then presents its case to the jury. And after both sides have presented their case, the case is then submitted to the jury for a verdict.

That means that under Rule 50[a], a defendant is able to move for judgment as a matter of law at an earlier time than a plaintiff, because a defendant can move under Rule 50[a] as soon as the plaintiff has closed its case and before the defendant has presented its case. In contrast, a plaintiff needs to wait until the defendant has closed its case before the plaintiff can move under Rule 50[a].

Once the defendant has finished its case, the plaintiff can move for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50[a], and the defendant can also move under Rule 50[a] at that time as well. This means that a defendant can actually move 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 its case; whereas a plaintiff can only move under Rule 50[a] once – only after the close of the defendant’s case.

a Rule 50[b] motion is made after a jury trial; generally, within 28 days after the entry of a judgment. Importantly, the filing of a Rule 50[a] motion for judgment as a matter of law during the jury trial is a prerequisite to the filing of a Rule 50[b] motion following the trial. That is why a Rule 50[b] motion is often referred to as a “renewed” motion for judgment as a matter of law.

If a party moves for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50[b] on a certain issue, and that issue was not raised via an earlier filed motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50[a], the court will not consider the issue. Now that we have discussed the timing and procedural requirements of motions for judgment as a matter of law, let’s turn to the standard for deciding motions for judgment as a matter of law.

The standard for granting a motion for judgment as a matter of law is the same, regardless of whether the motion was made under Rule 50[a] or Rule 50[b]. The standard is that the motion should only be granted if upon the undisputed evidence presented at trial, the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In other words, it should be granted only if no reasonable jury could find for the non-movant.

In making this assessment, the court must review all the evidence in the record and draw all reasonable inferences in the favor of the non-moving party. The court may not weigh the evidence or make credibility determinations. It is important to note that this is the exact same standard as the standard for deciding a motion for summary judgment.

For a detailed discussion of motions for summary judgment, please listen to our terrific "Listen and Learn" podcast on motions for summary judgment -- Episode 203 of the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast. This completes our discussion of motions for judgment as a matter of law for now. Let’s now turn to motions for a new trial, which are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59.

Unlike motions for judgment as a matter of law, where the movant is asking the court to take an issue away from the jury and enter a judgment in its favor on a certain issue, a motion for a new trial asks the court for a re-do – to retry the issues before a new jury and get a new verdict. A motion for a new trial must be filed within 28 days after the entry of judgment. There are generally three situations where a court will grant a motion for a new trial.

The first is when the jury’s verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence. In making this assessment, a court is permitted to weigh the evidence and assess the credibility of witnesses. This is an important distinction that renders motions for a new trial different than motions for a judgment as a matter of law. Remember, in assessing a motion for judgment as a matter of law, the court cannot weigh the evidence or make credibility determinations.

But in assessing whether the jury’s verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence, a court must respect the collective wisdom of the jury. A court cannot grant a new trial simply because it would have reached a different verdict. The second situation where a court will grant a motion for a new trial is where there was a legal or procedural error that occurred during the trial that rendered the trial unfair.

An example of such an error is when the jury’s verdict was based on false evidence or perjurious testimony. Another example of such an error is when there was prejudicial misconduct by one of the jurors. The third situation where a court will grant a motion for a new trial is where there is newly discovered evidence that would have materially altered the outcome of the trial. But the new evidence must truly be new.

It must be evidence that could not have previously been discovered with due diligence in time for the trial. Furthermore, it is important to note that even when a party is entitled to a new trial for one of the reasons above, a court does not need to grant a new trial on all issues. A new trial can be granted for only one claim or for a trial on just the damages of one claim.

Okay, now that we have made it through the basics 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 Defendant Hotel D. While having breakfast at the hotel one morning, one of Hotel D’s employees was pouring Peter some coffee, and the coffee dispenser malfunctioned, causing hot coffee to spill onto Peter. Peter suffered burn injuries as a result of the coffee spill.

Plaintiff Peter sued Hotel D in federal district court alleging a claim for negligence. The case eventually went to trial before a jury. During voir dire, the district judge asked each potential juror whether they had any prior experiences with Hotel D. None of the prospective jurors answered 'yes' to that question. At trial, Plaintiff Peter presented his evidence to support his negligence claim.

The evidence consisted of Peter’s own testimony regarding the events of the morning when the coffee spill occurred, and the medical bills he incurred as a result of the burn injuries he suffered from the spill. In addition, Peter presented testimony from an expert who opined that Hotel D inadequately trained its staff in how to properly serve hot coffee, and also opined that Hotel D served the coffee at an unreasonably hot temperature.

At the close of Plaintiff Peter’s evidence, Hotel D moved for judgment 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 training of its staff was adequate and proper, that the coffee was served at a reasonable temperature in compliance with industry standards, and that the malfunctioning of the coffee dispenser was unexpected.

In addition, Hotel D presented testimony from its employees, stating that they followed all the necessary protocols and precautions that morning, including examining the coffee dispenser for any possible issues prior to use. At the close of all evidence, neither party made any motions. The case was then submitted to the jury. And the jury returned a verdict in favor of Peter on his claim for negligence and awarded him damages for his burn injuries.

Five days after the entry of judgment, Hotel D learned for the first time that the jury foreperson previously stayed at Hotel D and had a bad experience with the staff. Upon being selected to be a juror in the case, the foreperson

Second, Hotel D argued that a new trial is required because of the jury foreperson’s failure to disclose during voir dire his prior bad experience with Hotel D and his feelings towards the hotel." Our first question regarding this hypo is: Was Hotel D’s Rule 50[b] motion for judgment as a matter of law procedurally proper? The answer is "yes".

In order to make a Rule 50[b] motion for judgment as a matter of law, the party needs to have previously made a Rule 50[a] motion for judgment as 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 has satisfied that procedural requirement. In addition, a Rule 50[b] motion must generally be made within 28 days after the entry of judgment.

Here, Hotel D moved under Rule 50[b] 25 days after the court’s entry of judgment, so Hotel D also satisfied the timing requirement for a Rule 50[b] motion. Turning to the next question regarding Hotel D’s Rule 50[b] motion for judgment

Therefore, Hotel D’s argument that its evidence was more persuasive and credible does not provide the court with a proper basis for overturning a jury verdict via a motion for judgment as a matter of law. A motion for judgment as a matter of law may only be granted if no reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party.

At trial, Plaintiff Peter, the non-moving party, presented evidence from his expert opining that Hotel D’s training was inadequate, and that the coffee was served at an unreasonably hot temperature. As such, there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find in his favor on the issue of negligence, and Hotel D’s motion for judgment as a matter of law should be denied.

Turning to Hotel D’s motion for a new trial, the next question is: Assuming the court agreed with Hotel D that its evidence was more credible and persuasive than Peter’s evidence on the issue of negligence, should the court grant Hotel D’s motion for new trial? The answer is, "probably not". In assessing a motion for a new trial, the court is permitted to weigh the evidence and assess the credibility of witnesses.

But a court may only grant a motion for a new trial if the jury’s verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence. A court cannot grant a new trial simply because it would have reached a different verdict. Here, the issue of negligence was highly disputed, with both parties presenting competing expert testimony to the jury.

Therefore, the district court would not be able to hold that the jury’s verdict was against the clear weight of the evidence, even if it found Hotel D’s evidence to be more persuasive than Peter’s evidence. Finally, our last question is: Should the district court grant Hotel D’s motion for a new trial based on the jury foreperson’s failure to disclose during voir dire his feelings towards Hotel D? The answer is "yes".

A court may grant a motion for a new trial when there is a legal or procedural error that occurred during the trial that rendered the trial unfair. An example of such an error is when there was prejudicial misconduct by one of the jurors.

In this case, the jury foreperson failed to properly disclose his actual bias against Hotel D. And given the juror’s statement that there is no way he would reach a verdict in favor of Hotel D, Hotel D was prejudiced by the juror’s failure to disclose his bias, and it rendered the trial unfair. And that wraps up our discussion of motions for judgment as a matter of law and motions for new trial.

Hopefully you found these hypos helpful examples of how to work through any motions for judgment as a matter of law or motions for new trial questions on your exams. Thanks again to SpacedRepetition.com for sponsoring our podcast. It's only $99, and you even get a full week to decide if it's for you before you pay a penny! And for our Toolbox listeners, here's an extra advantage. Get an exclusive 15% off the "Boost Deck", the essential tool for bar candidates.

Again, just use the code TOOLBOX in all caps when you check out on SpacedRepetition.com. Try it. If you enjoyed this episode of the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast, please take a second to leave a review and rating on your favorite listening app. We’d really appreciate it. And be sure to subscribe so you don’t miss anything. If you have any questions or comments, please don’t hesitate to reach out to myself or Alison at [email protected] or [email protected].

Or you can always contact us at our website contact form at BarExamToolbox.com. Thanks for listening, and we’ll talk soon!