Opinion ID: 2707
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Standard for Judgment as a Matter of Law

Text: In considering a motion for judgment as a matter of law, the district court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and it may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence . . . . Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge. . . . Thus, although the court should review the record as a whole, it must disregard all evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury is not required to believe. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing, 530 U.S. 133, 150-51, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)) (emphases ours). Thus, a court may grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law only if it can conclude that, with credibility assessments made against the moving party and all inferences drawn against the moving party, a reasonable juror would have been compelled to accept the view of the moving party. Piesco v. Koch, 12 F.3d 332, 343 (2d Cir.1993) (emphasis added). In ruling on such a motion, the court must bear in mind that the jury is free to believe part and disbelieve part of any witness's testimony. See, e.g., Fiacco v. City of Rensselaer, 783 F.2d 319, 325 (2d Cir.1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 922, 107 S.Ct. 1384, 94 L.Ed.2d 698 (1987); see also Haywood v. Koehler, 78 F.3d 101, 105 (2d Cir.1996) (jurors are free to accept bits of testimony from several witnesses and to make reasonable inferences from whatever testimony they credit[]). Incontrovertible evidence relied on by the moving party, such as a relevant videotape whose accuracy is unchallenged, should be credited by the court on such a motion if it so utterly discredits the opposing party's version that no reasonable juror could fail to believe the version advanced by the moving party. See Scott v. Harris, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 1775-76, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007) (so holding with respect to proceedings on summary judgment); see generally Reeves, 530 U.S. at 150, 120 S.Ct. 2097 (the standard for granting summary judgment `mirrors' the standard for judgment as a matter of law, such that `the inquiry under each is the same' (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 250-51, 106 S.Ct. 2505)). The court is not permitted to find as a fact a proposition that is contrary to a finding made by the jury. See, e.g., Smith v. Lightning Bolt Productions, Inc., 861 F.2d 363, 367 (2d Cir.1988) (court cannot . . . substitute its judgment for that of the jury (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also LeBlanc-Sternberg v. Fletcher, 67 F.3d 412, 430 (2d Cir.1995) (In ruling on the motion by [one codefendant] for judgment as a matter of law, . . . the court was required to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the [individual] plaintiffs; whatever its own view of the facts may have been, the court was not entitled to substitute its view for adequately supported findings that were implicit in the jury's verdict against another defendant.), cert. denied, 518 U.S. 1017, 116 S.Ct. 2546, 135 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1996). Nor is the court permitted to make findings on factual questions not submitted to the jury where those findings take the evidence in the light most favorable to the moving party, rather than the opposing party. See, e.g., Kerman, 374 F.3d at 120. We review de novo the district court's decision on a motion for judgment as a matter of law. In so doing, we apply the same standard that is required of the district court. We consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion was made and . . . give that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences that the jury might have drawn in his favor from the evidence. Black v. Finantra Capital, Inc., 418 F.3d 203, 209 (2d Cir.2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). We disregard all evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury is not required to believe. Reeves, 530 U.S. at 151, 120 S.Ct. 2097.