I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al
ORDER denying Defendants' 833 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law on Damages or New Trial. Signed by District Judge Raymond A. Jackson and filed on 4/2/13. (mwin, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COTTRT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIILGINIA FILED
APR -2 2013
I/P ENGINE, INC.,
US DISTRICT COURT
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:llcv512
AOL INC., et aL,
Before the Court is Defendants' Renewed Motion for a Judgment as a Matter of Law on
Damages (ECF No. 833), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b). As an alternative to
granting the Defendants' Renewed Motion for a Judgment as a Matter of Law on Damages, the
Defendants seeka new trial on all issues, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 59(a).
Rule 50 permits a district court, if it "finds that the jury would not have a legally sufficient
evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue" to "resolve the issue against the party...[or]
grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law[.]" F.R.C. P. 50(a). As to motions under Rule
50, only admissible evidence can be considered when determining whether there is a legally
sufficient evidentiary basis to support a jury's verdict. Weisgram v. Marley Co., 528 U.S. 440,
454 (U.S. 2000). Rule 59(a) instructs that "[t]he court may, on motion, grant a new trial on all or
some of the issues-and to any party.. .after a jury trial, for any reason for which a new trial has
heretofore beengranted in an action at law in federal court[.]" As a general matter, disturbing a
jury's verdict by ordering a newtrial under Rule 59(a) is an extreme remedy only warranted in a
narrow set of circumstances:
On such a motion it is the duty of the judge to set aside the verdict and grant a
new trial, if he is of the opinion that  the verdict is against the clear weight of
the evidence, or  is based upon evidence which is false, or  will result in a
miscarriage of justice, even though there may be substantial evidence which
would prevent the direction of a verdict.
AtlasFoodSys. &Servs. v. Crane Nat'l Vendors, 99 F.3d 587, 594 (4th Cir. 1996). Further,
"[o]n a Rule 59 motion, courts may make credibilityjudgments in determining the clear weight
of the evidence." AttardIndus, v. UnitedStates Fire Ins. Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119119
(E.D. Va. Nov. 9, 2010) (citation omitted). Finally, "the court will search the record for
evidence that could reasonably lead the jury to reach its verdict, drawing all reasonable
inferences in favor of the verdict winner." 12 Moore's Federal Practice - Civil § 59.13 (3d
Having reviewed the parties' memoranda, the Court first finds that there is a legally
sufficient evidentiary basis for the jury's verdict. Furthermore, the Court finds that the verdict is
not against the clear weight of the evidence, nor was the verdict of the jury based on evidence
that is false, or will a miscarriage ofjustice result. Defendants have raised issues that have
already been resolved by the Court in prior rulings and orders. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion
for Judgment as a Matter of Law on Damages or New Trial (ECF No. 833) is DENIED. The
Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Order to counsel and parties of record.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Judge
April 1 2013
Raymond A. Jackson
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?