UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ADIL SHAFI,

Counter-Plaintiff,

v. Case Number: 09-10454

Honorable Victoria A. Roberts

BRAINTECH, INC.,

Counter-Defendant.

 / 

ORDER DENYING BRAINTECH, INC.’S RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT 

AS A MATTER OF LAW OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR NEW TRIAL (Doc. # 154)

In Count II of Adil Shafi’s counterclaim, he alleges Braintech breached an

employment agreement by failing to pay him severance after terminating his

employment. This matter was tried to a jury beginning May 21, 2013. 

On May 22, 2013, Braintech moved for Judgment as a Matter of Law under Fed.

R. Civ. P. 50(a); the Court took this motion under advisement. On May 23, 2013, the

jury returned a verdict in favor of Shafi, finding that he “prove[d] by a preponderance of

the evidence that ... Braintech ... did not have good cause to terminate his employment.” 

The jury awarded Shafi $180,000 in severance pay. On May 24, 2013, the Court

entered judgment on the verdict.

On June 21, 2013, Braintech filed a “Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter

of Law or, In the Alternative, For New Trial. This matter is fully briefed. 

Braintech says it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50;

Braintech argues that “[v]iewing the record evidence in the light most favorable to Shafi

and, drawing all reasonable inferences therefrom, there is no legally sufficient

2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 167 Filed 11/26/13 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 3496
2

evidentiary basis for the jury verdict in this case.” Braintech also say that “[u]nder any

reasonable view, Braintech had good cause to terminate Shafi’s employment.” In the

alternative, Braintech argues it is entitled to a new trial under Rule 59(a), “because the

jury’s determination that Braintech did not have good cause to terminate Adil Shafi’s

employment is against the clear weight of the evidence.” 

Braintech fails to convince the Court that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of

law or a new trial. 

Viewing the evidence presented in the light most favorable to Shafi, the Court

finds that a reasonable jury could have found in favor of him. Accordingly, Braintech is

not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Mazda Motor Corp. v. Lindahl, 706

A.2d 526, 530 (Del. 1998)(holding that judgment as a matter of law should not be

granted “where ‘under any reasonable view of the evidence the jury could have

justifiably found for the non-moving party’”).

In addition, after “compar[ing] the opposing proofs” and “weigh[ing] the

evidence,” the Court finds that the jury’s verdict in favor of Shafi is “one which

reasonably could have been reached.” See J.C. Wyckoff & Associates v. Standard Fire

Ins. Co., 936 F.2d 1474, 1487 (6th Cir. 1991)(citation omitted). The verdict is not

“against the clear weight of the evidence.” See id. Therefore, Braintech is not entitled

to a new trial. Id.

Braintech’s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or, In the

Alternative, For New Trial is DENIED.

2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 167 Filed 11/26/13 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 3497
3

IT IS ORDERED.

S/Victoria A. Roberts 

Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Judge

Dated: November 26, 2013

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of

record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on

November 26, 2013.

S/Linda Vertriest 

Deputy Clerk

 

2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 167 Filed 11/26/13 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 3498