Opinion ID: 77005
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: issues

Text: 11 1. Whether the district court properly granted Fieldale's motion for judgment as a matter of law on the Londons' PSA termination claim because the Londons did not show that the termination had an adverse effect on competition. 12 2. Whether the district court properly granted Fieldale's motion for judgment as a matter of law on the Londons' state law claims for breach of contract and fraud. 13 3. Whether the district court properly granted Fieldale's motion for summary judgment on the Londons' PSA retaliation claim. 14 4. Whether the district court properly granted Fieldale's motion for summary judgment on the Londons' PSA improper weighing claims. STANDARDS OF REVIEW 15 This court reviews de novo the district court's order granting a party's motion for judgment as a matter of law. Rossbach v. City of Miami, 371 F.3d 1354, 1356 (11th Cir.2004). A judgment as a matter of law is warranted only `[i]f during a trial by jury a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue.' U.S.S.E.C. v. Ginsburg, 362 F.3d 1292, 1297 (11th Cir.2004) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a)(1)). This court also reviews de novo the district court's order granting summary judgment, applying the same legal standards that governed the district court's decision. Info. Sys. & Networks Corp. v. City of Atlanta, 281 F.3d 1220, 1224 (11th Cir.2002).