- Is Defendant's renewed motion timely as to the counterclaim?
Answer: No, because it was filed more than28 days after the jury was discharged.
Whenever a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law targets an issue the jury did not decide, Rule 50(b) sets a special timing rule: the motion must be filed no later than 28 days after the jury is discharged, not after judgment is entered. Here, the jury returned a verdict on liability but could not reach a verdict on Defendant's counterclaim. The court entered judgment and discharged the jury on March 1. Because the motion addresses only the counterclaim—an issue "not decided by verdict"—the 28-day clock starts on the discharge date.
Counting from March 1, the 28th day is March 29 (excluding the day of discharge under the federal time-computation rules). Defendant filed on March 30, one day late. So the motion is untimely.
The choice saying it was timely because filed within 30 days after jury discharge misstates the rule: the deadline is 28 days, not 30. The choice saying it is untimely because it was more than 28 days after entry of judgment uses the wrong trigger; judgment entry matters only for issues decided by verdict. Finally, the choice saying it was timely within 30 days after entry of judgment and that this triggers all renewed motions is doubly wrong—the deadline is 28 days, and this motion is controlled by jury discharge.
On exam day, when you see Rule 50(b), ask first: did the jury decide the issue? If no, the time runs from discharge of the jury. Count carefully—28 days, not 30—and remember the filing day must be on or before that deadline.
- How should the court rule on Defendant's post-verdict motion?
Answer: Deny it because Defendant failed to move for judgment as a matter of law before submission of the case to the jury.
Whenever a post-verdict motion challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence, your first instinct should be Rule 50. Remember that Rule 50 creates a two-step process: a motion for judgment as a matter of law before submission to the jury is a required first step; after an unfavorable verdict, the party may only file a "renewed" motion under Rule 50(b). Here, Defendant never moved under Rule 50(a), so there is nothing to renew.
The correct ruling is to deny the motion because Defendant failed to move for judgment as a matter of law before the case was submitted to the jury. That failure is fatal, no matter how strong the legal-insufficiency argument might be. The 20-day filing was timely under Rule 50(b), so timing is not the problem.
The choice saying the court should grant because a post-verdict motion may assert any legal insufficiency misses the core limit: a Rule 50(b) motion can only raise grounds that were asserted in the pre-verdict motion. Similarly, granting simply because the evidence was legally insufficient ignores the mandatory procedural prerequisite. Finally, do not deny merely because the caption says "judgment notwithstanding the verdict"—that outdated label is generally treated as a Rule 50 motion, but the label cannot cure the failure to satisfy Rule 50(a).
On exam day, see "motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict" and immediately ask: Was there a pre-verdict Rule 50(a) motion? Without it, no 50(b) relief.
- What should the appellate court do in this situation?
Answer: Order a new trial or remand for the trial court to determine whether a new trial should be granted.
This question tests Rule 50(c)'s post-verdict machinery. Whenever a trial court grants a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, it must also conditionally rule on any alternative new-trial motion. That conditional ruling becomes central if the JMOL is later reversed on appeal.
Here, after the jury found for Plaintiff, the court granted Defendant's renewed JMOL and conditionally denied the new-trial motion. The appellate court reversed, finding the JMOL improper because reasonable jurors could differ. Under Rule 50(c)(2), once the JMOL is reversed, the appellate court may order a new trial or remand for the trial court to determine whether a new trial should be granted. That is the correct result.
"Order entry of judgment for Plaintiff because the jury verdict has already been rendered" is not the Rule's remedy: the conditionally denied new-trial motion still needs resolution, so the appellate court does not automatically re-enter judgment on the verdict. "Dismiss the appeal because the conditional denial is not a final, appealable order" misreads jurisdiction: the appeal is from the final judgment, and the appellate court reviews the JMOL ruling along with the conditional new-trial ruling. "Direct entry of judgment for Defendant because the trial court already conditionally ruled that a new trial was unwarranted" wrongly treats the conditional denial as binding after reversal; it must be either converted into an actual ruling or superseded by an appellate new-trial order.
Study tip: reversed JMOL plus conditionally denied new trial = new trial or remand, not automatic judgment for either side.
- Should the court grant the renewed motion on the reliance ground?
Answer: No, because the renewed motion may not rely on a ground that was not specified in the pre-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law.
Whenever you see a post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law, think preservation. The renewed motion under Rule 50(b) is not a second chance to raise new arguments; it can only revisit grounds the moving party specified in its pre-verdict Rule 50(a) motion. That specificity requirement exists to give the opponent notice and a fair opportunity to cure the alleged deficiency before the case goes to the jury.
Here the defendant's oral pre-verdict motion stated only that the plaintiff failed to prove fraudulent intent. It never mentioned reasonable reliance. The plaintiff therefore had no reason to offer additional reliance evidence at that point. Once the jury returned a verdict, the defendant could not swap in a new legal ground. The required specification in 50(a)(2) blocks that maneuver, so the renewed motion on the reliance ground should not be grantedimi
The choice saying "yes, because the renewed motion may assert any ground supported by the trial record" misunderstands the preservation function of 50(b: the record may support a ground, but the movant still had to raise it pre-verdict. The choice saying "yes, because the plaintiff rested without offering evidence of reliance" focuses on evideniary sufficiency, but procedural default is dispositive—the court should not reach the merits of an unpreserved ground. The choice saying "an oral motion is ineffective to preserve any ground" is also wrong: Rule 50(a) does not require a written motion; an oral motion can preserve a ground as long as it specifies the law and facts. It preserved the fraudulent-intent ground, just note the reliance groundmi
Study takeaway: before moving for judgment as a matter of law, list every element you intend to challenge—your post-verdict motion can only repeat those same grounds.
- What should happen next?
Answer: The case should proceed to a new trial in the district court because the condition on the new-trial ruling has been satisfied.
This question tests the mechanics of a conditional new-trial ruling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(c). When a district court grants a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, it must also conditionally rule on any alternative motion for a new trial. That conditional ruling is designed to take effect if the judgment for the moving party is later reversed on appeal.
Here, the court of appeals reversed the judgment for the defendant and held the evidence sufficient to support the jury's verdict. That reversal triggers the condition the district court placed on its new-trial ruling. Therefore, the case should proceed to a new trial in the district court, exactly as the conditional ruling provided. The jury's verdict is not simply reinstated because the district court already determined that a new trial would be warranted if the judgment did not stand; that ruling is now effective. The court of appeals does not need to decide the new-trial motion on the merits because the district court already made that decision conditionally, and a conditional ruling does survive reversal in this sense. Nor is remand for a first-instance decision required, since the district court already ruled on the motion; the condition has simply come true.
On exam day, remember: reversal of a judgment as a matter of law does not necessarily mean the jury verdict wins — it activates any conditional new-trial ruling, so check what the district court ordered "in the event of reversal."
- May the court consider Defendant's renewed motion challenging the sufficiency of Plaintiff's evidence of damages?
Answer: No, because Defendant's initial motion did not specify damages as a ground, so the later motion is not a proper renewal as to that issue.
This question tests the "renewal" requirement of Rule 50(b). A post-verdict renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law is only a genuine renewal: it may raise only the specific grounds raised in the Rule 50(a) motion before the case went to the jury. Because Defendant's initial motion merely said Plaintiff "has not proved its case" and did not specify the damages gap, the later motion asserting that specific ground is not a proper renewal. The court therefore may not consider it. Critically, the rule requires the motion to "specify the judgment sought and the law and facts" supporting it, and a vague, general sufficiency objection is insufficient to preserve a particular argument.
The statement that a general motion preserves all sufficiency challenges is wrong; that is exactly the trap Rule 50(a)(2) was designed to prevent. Likewise, presenting evidence after the denied motion does not allow the defendant to raise brand-new grounds in a renewed motion—it merely allows the renewed motion at all. And the claim that Rule 50(b) is limited to grounds from a pretrial summary-judgment motion is incorrect; the relevant marker is the Rule 50(a) motion, not summary judgment.
Your study takeaway: when you see a Rule 50(b) question, always ask "Was the specific argument raised in the earlier Rule 50(a) motion?" If not, the post-verdict motion is out of bounds.
- How should the court rule on Precision's renewed motion?
Answer: Deny the motion, because Precision's pre-verdict motion specified only contract formation, and Rule 50(b) permits a renewed motion to assert only grounds specified in that motion.
When you see a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, focus first on Rule 50(b)'s procedural gate: the renewed motion may assert only grounds that were specified in the pre-verdict Rule 50(a) motion. The merits of the damages evidence matter only if that gate is passed.
Here, Precision's pre-verdict motion argued only insufficient evidence of contract formation. The court denied it, Precision rested, and the case went to the jury. After the verdict, Precision's renewed motion switched to a new argument—that damages were too speculative. Under Rule 50(b), that new ground is not preserved. So the court should deny the renewed motion regardless of whether the damages evidence was sufficient. That is why the correct answer is that the motion must be denied because Precision's pre-verdict motion specified only contract formation, and Rule 50(b) limits renewed motions to those same grounds.
The choice saying the pre-verdict motion preserved review of all evidence, including damages, misreads Rule 50(b): preservation is ground-specific, not issue-wide. The choice saying the CFO's spreadsheet and testimony provided a legally sufficient basis for damages is beside the point; the evidence was speculative—no customers identified, no purchase history—but the court never reaches that question because Precision failed to raise it earlier. Likewise, the choice urging the court to grant because the estimate was too speculative ignores the procedural bar; even a meritorious damages objection comes too late if it was not in the pre-verdict motion.
Study tip: whenever you see a renewed JMOL, compare its grounds to the pre-verdict motion first. If they do not match, the answer is almost always "deny"—whatever the underlying evidence problems are.
- How should the court rule on Defendant's renewed motion?
Answer: Deny themotion because Plaintiff's testimony, if believed, is legally sufficient and credibility determinations are reserved for the jury.
Whenever you see a motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50, remember the core question: could a reasonable jury find for the non-moving party based on the evidence presented? The standard is not whether the judge agrees with the verdict, but whether there is any legally sufficient basis for it. Here, Plaintiff's own testimony that Defendant's truck swerved is direct evidence of causation. Even if Defendant impeaches that testimony and presents contradicting eyewitnesses, credibility is quintessentially a jury function. The judge may not weigh credibility or choose which witnesses to believe when ruling on a Rule 50 motion. Because Plaintiff's testimony, if believed, would allow a reasonable jury to find causation, the renewed motion must be denied.
The choice that says the verdict rests on a single, uncorroborated, and directly contradicted witness is wrong because corroboration is not required—a single witness's testimony can be sufficient, and contradiction merely creates a credibility dispute for the jury. The option claiming the prior inconsistent statement conclusively destroys credibility as a matter of law misstates the law; impeachment evidence goes to weight, not admissibility or legal sufficiency. Finally, the choice that a renewed motion can be granted only when there is no evidence whatsoever oversimplifies—the standard is whether a reasonable jury would have a legally sufficient basis, but here that basis exists. The correct outcome is to deny the motion because Plaintiff's testimony, if credited, is enough, and credibility determinations belong to the jury.
For your exam, remember: Rule 50 motions are about legal sufficiency, not factual persuasion. When you see conflicting evidence, the judge must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant and never substitute her own credibility calls.
