Opinion ID: 2832576
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motions for judgment as a matter of law may be

Text: made at any time before submission of the case to the jury. Such a motion shall specify the judgment sought and the law and the facts on which the moving party is entitled to the judgment. HRCP Rule 50(a) (emphasis added). Although Plaintiffs cross-moved for JMOL, the circuit court would not have been able to grant the motion at that time because Defendants had not presented any evidence, and thus, had not “been fully heard” on the informed consent claims. 9 We note that the circuit court erred in concluding that Plaintiffs failed to establish an element of informed consent by not specifically testifying that they would have withheld consent if properly informed of the risks. We address this error in note 16 in Part IV.B, infra. 13  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  simply is no legally cognizable claim for informed consent on the facts of this case. And you add that to –- and in a sense that’s why there was no expert testimony on materiality because it’s simply not an informed consent case. The circuit court granted JMOL in Defendants’ favor on the issue of informed consent, concluding that, even viewing the evidence and inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, a reasonable jury could not find in their favor. On July 28, 2009, the circuit court subsequently entered its Final Judgment.