Harper v. Tveter et al

Filing 140

MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER on Parties' Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 9/2/2015. (blh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
TAYLOR HARPER,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER ON PARTIES’ MOTIONS FOR
JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL TVETER,

Case No. 2:13-CV-889 TS

Defendant.

District Judge Ted Stewart

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

1

Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000).

2

Id.
1

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.
DATED this 2nd day of September, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

Ted Stewart
United States District Judge

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).

2