HARPER v. TVETER, 2:13-CV-889 TS. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Utah
Number: infdco20150903d95
Visitors: 18
Filed: Sep. 02, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 02, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ON PARTIES' MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW TED STEWART , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the parties' Motions for Judgement as a Matter of Law. The parties made their Motions orally at the conclusion of trial on September 2, 2015. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) provides, If a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary
Summary: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ON PARTIES' MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW TED STEWART , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the parties' Motions for Judgement as a Matter of Law. The parties made their Motions orally at the conclusion of trial on September 2, 2015. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) provides, If a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary b..
More
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ON PARTIES' MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
TED STEWART, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the parties' Motions for Judgement as a Matter of Law. The parties made their Motions orally at the conclusion of trial on September 2, 2015.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) provides,
If a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue, the court may:
(A) resolve the issue against the party; and
(B) grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against the party on a claim or defense that, under the controlling law, can be maintained or defeated only with a favorable finding on that issue.
In reviewing a Rule 50 Motion, the Court should review all of the evidence in the record.1 However, all reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the nonmoving party and the Court does "not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence."2 Judgment as a matter of law is appropriate "only if the evidence points but one way and is susceptible to no reasonable inferences which may support the opposing party's position."3 A judgment as a matter of law is appropriate "[i]f there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis . . . with respect to a claim or defense . . . under the controlling law."4
Having considered the evidence and arguments presented on both sides, the Court finds that neither party has shown their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.
It is therefore
ORDERED that both parties' Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law are DENIED.
FootNotes
1. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000).
2. Id.
3. Finley v. United States, 82 F.3d 966, 968 (10th Cir. 1996).
4. Baty v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 172 F.3d 1232, 1241 (10th Cir. 1999).
Source: Leagle
