Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00792/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00792-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD HOMEM and WENDY HOMEM,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

INTEC CORPORATION and JIM

CHAMBLEE,

Defendants /

No. C 05-0792 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS MATTER

OF LAW ON ISSUE OF

SUCCESSORSHIP

Before the Court is plaintiffs’ Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law on the Issue of

Successorship, pursuant to Rule 50(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Defendant Intec USA, LLC has filed opposition, to which plaintiffs have replied. Having

considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court deems

the matter suitable for decision on the papers, VACATES the hearing scheduled for July 7,

2006, and rules as follows.

Rule 50(a)(1) provides as follows: “If during a trial by jury a party has been fully

heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to

find for that party on that issue, the court may determine the issue against that party and

may grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against that party with respect to a

claim or defense that cannot under the controlling law be maintained or defeated without a

favorable finding on that issue.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1).

Case 3:05-cv-00792-MMC Document 151 Filed 06/23/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

As defendants argue, and as plaintiffs concede in their reply, plaintiffs’ Rule 50

motion is procedurally improper because trial on the merits of plaintiffs’ claims has not

commenced. See McSherry v. City of Long Beach, 423 F. 3d 1015, 1019 (9th Cir. 2005)

(holding “use of Rule 50 at the outset of trial, prior to the presentation of any evidence”

inappropriate). Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion is hereby DENIED.

Plaintiffs, in their reply, argue that the motion should be treated as a motion for

summary judgment. Such request is DENIED, without prejudice to plaintiffs’ filing a motion

for summary judgment on the issue of successorship.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 23, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00792-MMC Document 151 Filed 06/23/06 Page 2 of 2