Bales has failed to show that the district court made any error of law or that he is otherwise entitled to a new trial because the district court sustained defendants' objection. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. Early cases from this Court suggested that a party could bring a Rule 59 motion for new trial even if the party had not previously filed a motion for JMOL prior to submission to the jury.
More recent cases seem to undermine that proposition.
We need not decide which rule applies here because Bales filed neither a Rule 50 motion nor a Rule 59 motion for new trial. Perhaps recognizing the import of his procedural default, Bales complains that his attorneys were ineffective in failing to pursue adequate post-trial remedies. Ineffective assistance of counsel does not relieve a litigant from an adverse judgment in a civil case. Bales' appropriate remedy for any allegedly incompetent representation in this case is a malpractice suit against his trial counsel.