Opinion ID: 3065119
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether MGA’s Motion Was Timely

Text: [1] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) states that “if the [renewed] motion [for judgment as a matter of law] addresses a jury issue not decided by a verdict, no later than 10 days after the jury was discharged[,] the movant may file a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law . . . .” The period begins to run on the day after the district court dismisses the jury. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a). Though the district court did not enter the order granting a mistrial until Monday, May 14, the district judge dismissed the jury on Friday, May 11. The ten-day filing period therefore began to run on Monday, May 14 and closed on Friday, May 25. MGA’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law was untimely. 2. Whether Rule 50(b)’s Timeliness Requirement is Jurisdictional [2] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) forbids courts to extend the ten-day filing period set out in Rule 50(b). Accordingly, courts have sometimes characterized Rule 50(b)’s tenday filing requirement as mandatory and jurisdictional, and ART ATTACKS v. MGA ENTERTAINMENT 13447 therefore incapable of being waived or forfeited. See, e.g., Goodman v. Bowdoin Coll., 380 F.3d 33, 46 (1st Cir. 2004); Hodge ex rel. Skiff v. Hodge, 269 F.3d 155, 157 (2d Cir. 2001); U.S. Leather, Inc. v. H&W P’ship, 60 F.3d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1995). Since then, however, the Supreme Court has “clarified that procedural rules formerly referred to as ‘mandatory and jurisdictional’ may be, instead, simply ‘inflexible claimprocessing rule[s],’ mandatory if invoked by a party but forfeitable if not invoked.” United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 934 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12 (2005) and Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (2004)) (internal quotations omitted)). “The distinction between jurisdictional rules and inflexible but not jurisdictional timeliness rules . . . turns largely on whether the timeliness requirement is or is not grounded in a statute.” Sadler, 480 F.3d at 936. “[T]ime constraints arising only from Court-prescribed, albeit congressionally authorized, procedural rules [such as the Federal Rules] are not jurisdictional. Id. at 938. [3] Though this circuit has not yet specifically addressed whether the time restrictions in Rule 6(b) and Rule 50(b) are jurisdictional, other circuits have concluded that these restrictions are non-jurisdictional. See, e.g., Dill v. Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co., 525 F.3d 612, 618 (8th Cir. 2008); Weissman v. Dawn Joy Fashions, Inc., 214 F.3d 224, 232 (2d Cir. 2000). We agree. See also Eberhart, 546 U.S. at 19 (likening Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 45(b), a non-jurisdictional rule, to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b). Because Rule 50(b)’s ten-day filing deadline is a non-jurisdictional claimprocessing rule, it can be waived or forfeited. 3. Whether Art Attacks Waived Its Rule 50(b) Argument [4] Art Attacks never objected to the timeliness of MGA’s Rule 50(b) motion for summary judgment before the district 13448 ART ATTACKS v. MGA ENTERTAINMENT court. Accordingly, Art Attacks has forfeited its untimeliness objection. We therefore proceed to the merits of the appeal.