Yokozeki v. Carr-Locke

Filing 63

Magistrate Judge Marianne B. Bowler: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. The motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, alternatively, a new trial (Docket Entry # 59 ) is therefore DENIED.(Patton, Christine)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
SHIMAKO YOKOZEKI,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
13-12587-MBB

ALAN H.L. CARR-LOCKE,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE:
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING
THE VERDICT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR A NEW TRIAL
(DOCKET ENTRY # 59)
August 19, 2015

BOWLER, U.S.M.J.
Pending before this court is a motion to enter a judgment
notwithstanding the verdict filed by defendant Alan H. L. CarrLocke (“defendant”) under Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b) (“Rule 50(b)”).1
Neither the motion nor the predecessor Rule 50(a) motion (Docket
Entry # 53) specified the law or the facts entitling defendant to
relief.

In the alternative, defendant moves “for a new trial and

states as reasons therefore that the jury’s verdict was against
the weight of the evidence, based on speculation, prejudice and

1

Although the motion does not cite to the applicable rule,
it is evident that defendant refers to Rule 50(b). See
Chamberlin v. Town of Stoughton, 601 F.3d 25, 36 (1st Cir. 2010)
(“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 was amended in 1991, and
‘the term judgment as a matter of law was adopted to refer to
preverdict (directed verdict) and postverdict (judgment
notwithstanding the verdict) motions’”) (emphasis added).

bias” under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59 (“Rule 59”).

(Docket Entry # 59).

Plaintiff Shimako Yokozeki (“plaintiff”) opposes the motion.
(Docket Entry # 60).
DISCUSSION
An evidentiary sufficiency challenge under Rule 50(b), which
is the “most common” type of challenge under Rule 50(b),
Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. v. U.S., 763 F.3d 64, 68
(1st Cir. 2014), provides a basis to set aside a jury verdict
“‘only . . . when “the evidence points so strongly and
overwhelmingly in favor of the moving party that no reasonable
jury could have returned a verdict adverse to that party.”’”
Malone v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 610 F.3d 16, 20 (1st Cir. 2010);
accord Mercado-Berrios v. Cancel-Alegria, 611 F.3d 18, 22 (1st
Cir. 2010).

The evidence and reasonable inferences are viewed

“‘in the light most favorable to’ the non-moving party” and it is
not appropriate to evaluate “the credibility of the witnesses” or
“the weight of the evidence.”
610 F.3d at 20.

Malone v. Lockheed Martin Corp.,

“‘Courts may only grant a judgment contravening

a jury’s determination when “the evidence points so strongly and
overwhelmingly in favor of the moving party that no reasonable
jury could have returned a verdict adverse to that party.”’”
Id.

With respect to Rule 59(a), a new trial is warranted “‘only

if the verdict is against the law, against the weight of the
credible evidence, or tantamount to a miscarriage of justice.’”
Ira Green, Inc. v. Military Sales & Service Co., 775 F.3d 12, 18
2

(1st Cir. 2014).
Here, the evidence was more than sufficient for the jury to
render a verdict on the breach of contract claim as well as the
money had and received claim and the money due on one or more
negotiable instruments claim.

A promissory note (Ex. 1), emails

exchanged between plaintiff and defendant and plaintiff’s
testimony provide ample support for the jury’s verdict.
CONCLUSION
The motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or,
alternatively, a new trial (Docket Entry # 59) is therefore
DENIED.

/s/ Marianne B. Bowler
MARIANNE B. BOWLER
United States Magistrate Judge

3