SOLIDFX LLC v. Jeppesen Sanderson Inc

Filing 413

ORDER denying 409 Supplemental Rule 50(b) Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Following Amendment of the Judgment. By Judge William J. Martinez on 2/27/2015.(alowe)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 11-cv-01468-WJM-BNB
SOLIDFX, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEPPESEN SANDERSON, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL RULE 50(b) MOTION FOR
JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW FOLLOWING AMENDMENT OF JUDGMENT

On February 3, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter
Judgment, which reinstated the full amount of the jury verdict on the breach of contract
claims. (ECF No. 406.) The Court directed the entry of an amended judgment, which
was entered the same day. (ECF No. 407.) Two days later, the Court denied
Defendant’s Rule 50(b) Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, finding that Plaintiff
had presented sufficient evidence at trial to support the jury’s verdict. (ECF No. 408.)
On February 20, 2015, Defendant filed a Supplemental Rule 50(b) Motion for
Judgment as a Matter of Law (“Motion”), which renews the arguments raised in its
original Rule 50(b) Motion, but directs those arguments towards the Amended
Judgment. (ECF No. 409.) In the Motion, Defendants states that it “recognizes that the
Court has rejected Jeppesen’s arguments with respect to these issues in ruling upon
Jeppesen’s Rule 50(a) and 50(b) motions, as well as SolidFX’s Rule 59(e) motion, but
presents this supplemental Rule 50(b) motion in response to the Amended Judgment to

ensure preservation of its appellate rights.” (Id. at 1.)
As Defendant candidly notes, the Court has repeatedly rejected the arguments
raised in the Motion. (See, e.g., ECF Nos. 406 & 408.) The instant Motion includes no
new information that would alter the Court’s prior analysis. As such, the Court finds that
it need not substantively address the arguments raised in the Motion, and instead
incorporates the reasoning from its prior Orders. (Id.)
Accordingly, Defendant’s Supplemental Rule 50(b) Motion for Judgment as a
Matter of Law Following Amendment of the Judgment (ECF No. 409) is DENIED.
Dated this 27th day of February, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

William J. Martínez
United States District Judge

2