Opinion ID: 2460770
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Legal standards for the motions; standard of review for the rulings

Text: Motions for directed verdict and JNOV are provided for in Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 50. Rule 50(a) acknowledges that a motion for directed verdict may be made after the close of the opponent's evidence and provides that in the event the motion is denied, the moving party may then present its evidence. [10] Rule 50(b) recognizes that a motion for directed verdict may be made at the close of all the evidence but before the case is submitted to the jury, and provides that in the event the motion is denied or otherwise not granted, the case is submitted to the jury subject to a later determination of the legal questions raised in the motion. [11] Rule 50(b) further provides that a party who unsuccessfully moved for directed verdict may move to set aside an adverse verdict and judgment and have judgment entered in its favor in accordance with its motion for directed verdict, [12] which is referred to as a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. [13] At the close of Chang-Craft's evidence Alaska Airlines moved for directed verdict on her wrongful termination claim, arguing that Chang-Craft had not presented sufficient evidence to establish that the Union had breached its duty of fair representation. That motion was denied, and Alaska Airlines presented its evidence. At the close of all the evidence Alaska Airlines renewed its motion for directed verdict on the same ground. The renewed motion was denied. Alaska Airlines then timely moved for JNOV on the same ground. That motion also was denied. Alaska Airlines appeals all three rulings. This causes us to consider whether the record for review is different for the different motions. We first note that a party cannot appeal the denial of a JNOV motion if the party did not move for a directed verdict at the close of the evidence, although failure to bring a JNOV motion does not preclude review of the denial of a motion for a directed verdict made at the close of all the evidence. [14] But because both motions focus on the state of the record at the close of all the evidence, there should be no material difference in the motions, how they are decided, or how they are reviewed on appeal. [15] We next note that a mid-trial directed verdict motion is essentially a summary judgment motion made after the close of an opponent's case. [16] We have held that the denial of a summary judgment motion due to a factual dispute may not be appealed after trial. [17] The denial of a mid-trial directed verdict due to a factual dispute likely should be treated in similar fashion, but because Alaska Airlines again moved for a directed verdict at the close of the evidence, we review the denial of the directed verdict motions, along with the denial of the JNOV motion, on the full record presented to the jury. [18] We next consider the standard for directed verdict and JNOV motions. The substantive legal question [19] is whether the evidence, and all reasonable inferences which may be drawn from the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, permits room for diversity of opinion among reasonable jurors. [20] Because conflicting evidence is not to be weighed and witness credibility is not to be judged on appeal, [21] generally the only evidence that should be considered is the evidence favorable to the non-moving partyif that evidence is insufficient to allow a reasonable juror to find for the non-moving party, the trial court should grant a directed verdict or JNOV motion. But such motions should be scrutinized under a principle of minimum intrusion into the right to jury trial guaranteed under the Alaska Constitution. . . . If there is any doubt, questions of fact should be submitted to the jury. [22] Finally, we note that because the sufficiency of the evidence to support a jury verdict is a question of law, our review is de novo. [23]