Opinion ID: 70504
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: scott’s motion for judgment as a matter of law

Text: The denial of Judgment as a Matter of Law is reviewed de novo. E.g., Burge v. St. Tammany Parish, 336 F.3d 363, 369 (5th Cir. 2003). We apply the same standard the district court applied and consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. E.g., Bank of Saipan v. CNG Fin. Corp., 380 F.3d 836, 840 (5th Cir. 2004). Judgment as a Matter of Law is proper if “a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for [a] party on [an] issue.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a). In this case, however, the Plaintiff-Appellant’s failure to move for Judgment as a Matter of Law prior to the jury verdict is fatal to his appeal now before us. Satcher v. Honda Motor Co., 52 F.3d 1311, 1315 (5th Cir. 1995) (“To fully preserve error on appeal for failure to grant a motion for judgment, the moving party must file both a pre-verdict Rule 50(a) motion at the close of all the evidence and the renewed Rule 50(b) motion. An appellant who failed to do so in the district court is not entitled to rendition of judgment in his favor on appeal, but is at most entitled to a new trial.”).2 Scott never filed a “pre-verdict” motion, and consequently, this issue has not been properly preserved for appeal. While it is true that “[w]e excuse technical noncompliance with Rule 50 where its basic purposes have been satisfied,” id., in the present case, the basic 2 Scott is proceeding pro se. Thus, we note that we apply “less stringent standards to parties proceeding pro se than to parties represented by counsel and liberally construe the briefs of pro se litigants.” Grant v. Cuellari, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995). In this particular instance, however, our less stringent standard of review for pro se plaintiffs does not adequately compensate for Scott’s failure to comply with the procedural requirements of Rule 50. 3 No. 08-30708 purposes behind Rule 50 have not been satisfied. “The basic purposes of the Rule are ‘to enable the trial court to re-examine the question of evidentiary insufficiency as a matter of law if the jury returns a verdict contrary to the movant, and to alert the opposing party to the insufficiency before the case is submitted to the jury, thereby affording it an opportunity to cure any defects in proof should the motion have merit.’” Id. (quoting Bohrer v. Hanes Corp., 715 F.2d 213, 216-217 (5th Cir. 1983)). Because Scott moved for Judgment as a Matter of Law after the jury returned its verdict, the district court had no opportunity to “re-examine the question of evidentiary sufficiency” prior to submitting the evidence to the jury, and the opposing parties were not alerted to the potential “insufficiency before the case [wa]s submitted to the jury.” Id. Accordingly, the basic purposes behind Rule 50 have not been met, and as a result, we cannot conclude that the district court erred in denying Scott’s post-verdict Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law.