T-Mobile USA Inc v. Huawei Device USA Inc et al

Filing 474

ORDER denying #469 MOTION for Judgment DEFENDANT HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC.'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW by Judge Richard A. Jones. (VE)

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

T-MOBILE USA, INC.,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12

v.

Case No. C14-1351-RAJ
ORDER

HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

13
14
15

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant Huawei Device USA, Inc.'s

16

("Huawei USA") Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. Dkt. # 469. The Court finds

17

that no response from Plaintiff T-Mobile USA, Inc. ("T-Mobile") is necessary for the

18

purpose of resolving Huawei USA's motion.

19

Rule 50(a) provides, "[i]f a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury

20

trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient

21

evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue, the court may: (A) resolve the issue

22

against the party; and (B) grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against the party

23

on a claim or defense that, under the controlling law, can be maintained or defeated only

24

with a favorable finding on that issue." Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1). In applying Rule 50(a),

25

the Court "must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party . . .

26

and draw all reasonable inferences in that party's favor." Ostad v. Oregon Health Scis.

27

Univ., 327 F.3d 876, 881 (9th Cir. 2003). "A motion for a judgment as a matter of law is

28

ORDER – 1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

properly granted only if no reasonable juror could find in the non-moving party's favor."
El-Hakem v. BJY Inc., 415 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005).
As the non-moving party, T-Mobile is entitled to all reasonable inferences and for
the Court to view the evidence in the light most favorable to it. Applying this standard,
and having reviewed Huawei USA's motion and the applicable law, and being familiar
with the relevant portions of the trial record, the Court concludes that a reasonable jury
would have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for T-Mobile on the issues that
Huawei USA raises in its motion. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Huawei USA's
motion. Dkt. # 469.
DATED this 14th day of May, 2017.

A

11
12

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER – 2