Harper v. Tveter et al
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
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER ON PARTIES’ MOTIONS FOR
JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
Case No. 2:13-CV-889 TS
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
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000).
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:
United States District Judge
Finley v. United States, 82 F.3d 966, 968 (10th Cir. 1996).
Baty v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 172 F.3d 1232, 1241 (10th Cir. 1999).
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?