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

Filing 474


Download PDF
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

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?