Opinion ID: 1395914
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Menace as a Proper Party

Text: The Menace concedes it failed to renew the argument it was not a proper party to the dispute in its motion for judgment as a matter of law and instead argues we can consider this issue on appeal because the issue is purely a legal one. `Failure to renew a summary judgment argumentwhen denial was based on factual disputesin a motion for judgment as a matter of law under Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a)(1) at the close of all the evidence is considered a waiver of the issue on appeal.' White Consol. Indus., Inc. v. McGill Mfg. Co., 165 F.3d 1185, 1189 (8th Cir.1999) (quoting Wolfgang v. Mid-America Motorsports, Inc., 111 F.3d 1515, 1521 (10th Cir.1997)). However, `when the material facts are not in dispute and the denial of summary judgment is based on the interpretation of a purely legal question, such a decision is appealable after final judgment.' Id. at 1190 (quoting Wolfgang, 111 F.3d at 1521). Here, the district court denied The Menace's motion for summary judgment based on the existence of genuine issues of material fact, including (1) the existence of any express or implied contract between HOK Sport and The Menace; (2) any financial benefit The Menace reaped from HOK Sport's partial performance of the contract; and (3) Krause's capacity and involvement with the entities. Therefore, because The Menace's argument is not purely a legal question, The Menace waived this argument by failing to renew its summary judgment argument in its motion for judgment as a matter of law.