Hopkins AG Supply LLC v. First Mountain Bancorp

Filing 272

ORDER denying 267 Defendants' Supplement to Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. Signed by Honorable Robin J. Cauthron on 9/6/17. (lg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
HOPKINS AG SUPPLY LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LARRY WRIGHT, an individual, and
PHENIX SERVICES, a Florida
Corporation,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-12-1141-C

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Now before the Court is Defendants Larry Wright and Phenix Services’ Supplement
to Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Dkt. No. 267). At the close of Plaintiff’s
evidence at trial, Defendants Wright, Phenix Services, and Brunswick Companies moved
for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a). The Court granted
Brunswick’s Motion but reserved its ruling concerning Wright and Phenix Services’
request and directed them to file a post-trial written memorandum in support of their oral
motion for judgment as a matter of law. * Plaintiff has responded and the Motion is at
issue.

*

Courts have found it favorable to reserve judgment on motions for judgment as a matter
of law. See McDaniel v. Terex USA, L.L.C., 466 F. App’x 365, 370 (5th Cir. 2012) (citing
Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift–Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394, 405 (2006)); Borrero-McCormick
v. Univ. of Health Scis. Antigua Sch. of Med., 337 F. App’x 1, 1-2 (1st Cir. 2009); Sherrod v.
Palm Beach Cty. Sch. Dist., 424 F. Supp. 2d 1341, 1343-44 (S.D. Fla. 2006).

A court may hear a motion for judgment as a matter of law after “a party has been
fully heard on an issue during a jury trial” and the motion will be granted if the “court finds
that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the
party on that issue.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1). Therefore, “[j]udgment 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 nonmoving party’s position.” Etherton v. Owners Ins.
Co., 829 F.3d 1209, 1224 (10th Cir. 2016) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
The Court draws all evidentiary inferences in favor of the non-moving party and does not
“weigh the evidence or judge witness credibility.” Id. (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted).
The Court has considered the arguments and evidence presented by parties on
pretrial motions, at trial, and most recently in the current Motion, and there is no need to
recite them again. Drawing all evidentiary inferences in favor of Plaintiff, the Court finds
a reasonable jury would have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for the verdict it
returned.
Defendants raise a separate issue: that it was improper for Plaintiff to assert a fraud
and breach of contract claim based on the same tortious conduct in this case. However,
Defendants did not present this argument at trial or include it in the Amended Final Pretrial
Report (Dkt. No. 235); the Court will not consider it here.

2

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, Defendants’ Supplement to Motion for Judgment as a Matter
of Law (Dkt. No. 267) is DENIED. Judgement will be entered in accordance with the
jury’s verdict.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of September, 2017.

3