6 Pretrial Motions Flashcards
30 10526 MBE CIVIL PROCEDURE PRETRIAL PROCEDURE AND DISCOVERY
39 10529 MBE CIVIL PROCEDURE PRETRIAL PROCEDURE AND DISCOVERY
A decedent’s executor has brought a federal diversity action against a man, alleging that while the decedent and the man were riding dirt bikes on a track, the man’s bike ran into the decedent’s bike, causing the decedent to fall to her death. The man denies fault for the decedent’s death.
At trial, the executor’s only witness testifies that shortly before the accident he was riding 50 feet behind the man and saw the man rapidly approaching the decedent until they were only a few feet apart. This witness briefly looked away, heard an unusual noise, and immediately afterward saw the decedent and the decedent’s bike on the ground.
The man calls three witnesses, none of whom had met the decedent or the man before. Two riders testify that they were riding parallel to the man and never saw his bike touch the decedent’s bike. A track attendant, who was stationed close to the area where the decedent fell, testifies that he was watching the track and never saw any contact between the decedent and the man.
The man has moved for judgment as a matter of law.
Should the court grant the motion?
A. No, because the executor’s evidence is sufficient for the jury to find for the executor.
B. No, because there is a credibility dispute for the jury to resolve.
C. Yes, because a verdict for the executor would be against the great weight of the evidence.
D. Yes, because the executor has presented insufficient evidence to support a verdict.
D. Yes, because the executor has presented insufficient evidence to support a verdict.
A motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) is a request that the court enter a judgment in favor of the movant because the evidence is legally insufficient for a reasonable jury to find in the nonmovant’s favor. This means that a court should grant a defendant’s motion for JMOL if the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence at trial for a reasonable jury to issue a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
Here, the executor’s only witness testified that he saw the decedent and the man riding bikes a few feet apart but did not see them collide. In defense, the man called three disinterested witnesses who all testified that they never saw any contact between the decedent and the man. Based on this testimony, a reasonable jury could not conclude that the man collided with the decedent and caused her death. And since the executor has presented insufficient evidence to support a verdict, the court should grant the man’s motion for JMOL.
(Choice A) The executor’s evidence is insufficient for the jury to find for the executor. That is because the executor’s only witness did not see the collision, and the executor presented no other evidence that the man collided with the decedent and caused her death. Therefore, the man is entitled to JMOL.
(Choice B) The jury generally has the responsibility to determine which witnesses are credible when their testimonies conflict. However, the witnesses’ testimonies do not conflict here because none of them saw any contact between the decedent and the man. Therefore, there is no credibility dispute for the jury to resolve.
(Choice C) A court may grant a motion for a new trial on several grounds, one of which is that the verdict is against the clear (ie, great) weight of the evidence. But here, the man has moved for JMOL—not a new trial.
Educational objective:
A court may grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law when the evidence is legally insufficient for a reasonable jury to find in the nonmovant’s favor.
References
Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 (setting forth the standard for judgment as a matter of law).
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.
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.
Is the court likely to consider the renewed JMOL motion on the merits?
A. No because the deadline for filing a renewed JMOL motion cannot be extended.
B. No because the defendant failed to show good cause for its delay in filing the motion.
C. Yes because although the motion was late, the defendant explained the reason, and the plaintiff suffered no prejudice.
D. Yes because although the motion was late, the parties agreed to extend the time for posttrial motions.
A. No because the deadline for filing a renewed JMOL motion cannot be extended.
A motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) can only be filed after the nonmovant has presented its case but before the case is submitted to the jury. If a motion for JMOL is denied during trial, the movant can file a renewed motion for JMOL no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment to seek to overturn an adverse verdict. However, a court cannot extend the deadline to file a renewed motion for JMOL.
Here, the defendant properly moved for JMOL at the close of trial, but that motion was denied. The defendant then filed a renewed motion for JMOL after the court entered judgment against the defendant. But that motion was late because it was filed 35 days after the court’s entry of judgment. And though the parties agreed in their stipulation to extend the deadline for posttrial motions, the deadline for filing a renewed JMOL motion cannot be extended (Choice D). Therefore, the court is unlikely to consider the motion on the merits.
(Choice B) The court is unlikely to hear the defendant’s renewed JMOL motion because the court cannot extend the motion’s filing deadline—not because the defendant failed to show good cause for its delay in filing the motion.
(Choice C) A court may generally extend the deadline for a party to act (eg, file a motion) if good cause exists. Here, good cause may exist since the defendant explained why the renewed JMOL motion was filed late and the plaintiff suffered no prejudice as a result of the late filing. But even when good cause exists, the court cannot extend the deadline for a party to renew its motion for JMOL.
Educational objective:
A renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law must be filed within 28 days after the court enters judgment. A court cannot extend that deadline.
References
Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 (setting the deadline to renew motion for judgment as a matter of law).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) (explaining when the court may extend deadlines).
A car owner brought a federal diversity action against the car’s manufacturer, alleging that the manufacturer had fraudulently misrepresented the car’s compliance with federal emissions standards. The manufacturer answered, denying the allegations.
After discovery closed, the court entered a final pretrial order setting out the issues for trial. One week later, the owner moved to amend the order to include the issue of whether the manufacturer had also fraudulently misrepresented the car’s fuel economy.
What standard will the court use to determine whether to grant the owner’s motion?
A. The motion may be granted if justice so requires.
B. The motion may be granted if the owner’s omission of the fuel economy issue was due to oversight, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.
C. The motion may be granted only for good cause.
D. The motion may be granted only to prevent manifest injustice.
D. The motion may be granted only to prevent manifest injustice.
A federal court judge may hold one or more pretrial conferences with the parties’ attorneys or unrepresented parties. At these conferences, the judge has broad discretion to address and act on a wide range of issues to help expedite litigation, improve the trial’s quality, and facilitate settlement. At the final pretrial conference before trial, the judge will enter a final pretrial order that sets forth a plan for trial. The court may amend and modify this order only to prevent manifest injustice. Therefore, this is the standard that the court will use to determine whether to grant the owner’s motion to amend the court’s final pretrial order.
(Choice A) A federal court may freely grant leave to amend pleadings and should do so when justice so requires. But here, the owner moved to amend the court’s final pretrial order—not the owner’s complaint. Therefore, this standard does not apply.
(Choice B) A federal court may grant extraordinary relief from a final judgment that was entered due to the oversight, inadvertence, or excusable neglect of the parties or the court. But the owner is not seeking relief from a final judgment, so this standard is inapplicable.
(Choice C) A pretrial scheduling order—ie, a court order that schedules and manages the pleadings, motions, discovery, and other matters in a case—may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent. However, a final pretrial order may be modified only to prevent manifest injustice.
Educational objective
At the final pretrial conference, a federal court judge will issue a final pretrial order that sets forth a plan for trial. The court may modify this order only to prevent manifest injustice.
