T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T PRO G RESSI V E W EST I N SU RA N CE C OMP AN Y, P la in tif

f - c o u n te r - d e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t, v. CRA I G TI SCA REN O ; TERESA T I S C AR E NO , D e f

e n d a n ts - c o u n te r - c la im a n ts - A p p el l ees. N o. 11- 57033 D. C . No . 3 : 0 8 - c v - 0 0 1 8 0 - H- C AB ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia M a r i l y n L . H uf

f , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d A pr i l 9, 2013 ** P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: B E R Z O N , T A L L M A N , an dM . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. 

# FI LED APR11 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

P rogres si ve W es tInsurance C om pany (“ P rogres si ve”) appeal s f rom a f i nal j u d g m en ten t ered b y th e d i stri ctco u rti n fav o r o f C rai g T i scaren o an dT eresa T i sc ar eno. T he di stri ctcourtent er ed j ud gm entaf t era j ury f

ou nd , i n a spec i al v erd i ct , th atP ro g ressi v e h ad u n reaso n ab l y fai l ed t o accep tth e T i scaren o s’ s e ttle m e n t d e m a n d . P r o g r e s s iv e c o n te n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e din d e n y in g its p re -v er d ict m o ti o n fo r ju d g m en t as a m atter o f law , an dar g u es th at th e ju ry ’s ve r di c ti s nots upport e d bys uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 , a n dw e a f f irm th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t.

“ [A ] po st -ver di ctm ot i on un der [ F eder al R ul e of C i vi l P roce du re ] 50 (b) i s an absol ut e pre re qu i si t e t o any appeal base d o n i nsuffi ci encyof the evi dence. ” N i tco H oldi ng C or

p. v . B ouj iki an , 49 1 F . 3d 10 86 , 10 89 (9th C i r. 20 07 ); see a l so U ni therm Foo d S

ys . , Inc. v. Sw i

f t-E ckri ch, Inc. , 5 4 6 U .S . 3 9 4 , 4 0 0

– 0 1 ( 2 0 0 6 ) . B e c aus e P r ogr e s s i ve f

a i l e d t o f i l e apos t - ve r di c tR ul e 50( b) m ot i on, P r ogr e s s i ve ha s f or f e i t e d i t s r i ghtt o c ha l l e nge the j ury ’ s ve r di c tba s e d on s uf f i c i e nc yof

the e vi de nc e . I n the abs e nc e of aR ul e 50( b) m ot i on, a n “ appe l l a t e c ourt[ i ] s w i thout po w ert o d i re ctthe D i stri ctC ou rtt o ent erj ud gm entcontraryt o the on e i thad perm i tt ed t o st and. ” C one v . W . V i r gi ni a P ul p & P ape rC o. , 330 U . S . 212, 218 ( 1947) . A s ar e s ul t , w e a r e pr e c l ude d f r om gr a nt i ng the r e l i e f

s oughtby P r o g r e s s iv e , e n tr a n c e o f ju d g m e n t n o tw ith s ta n d in g th e v e r d ic t.3

E ve n i f w e w e r e t o c ons i de rthe m e r i t s of P r ogr e s s i ve ’ s a r gum e nt s on appeal , w e w ou l d con cl ud e thatthe di stri ctcourt ’ s j ud gm entw as no terroneou s a s a m att erof l aw and the j ury’ s ver di ctw as supp ort ed by suff i ci entevi dence. T here w as a l egal l y s uffi ci entevi dent i ary bas i s f or a r ea sonabl e j ury t o fi nd that P rogres si ve “ un re as on abl y f ai l [e d] t o acc epta r ea sonabl e s ett l em entdem and for an am ou ntw i thi n the po l i cyl i m i t s betw ee n A pri l 16 , 20 07 and M ay18 , 20 07 . ” J u d g me n t , Pr o g r e s s i v e W e s tI n s . Co . v . Ti s c a r e n o , N o . 3 : 0 8

– c v – 0 0 1 8 0

– H

– CA B, D k t. N o . 1 3 8 ( S . D . C a l. O c t. 2 6 , 2 0 1 1 ) ; se e F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 0 ( a ) ; se e al so B el l v. C lackam as Cnt

y. , 34 1 F . 3d 85 8, 86 5 (9th C i r. 20 03 ). AF F I RME D.