Opinion ID: 602402
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: preserving the right to a directed verdict

Text: 16 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 governs the process by which a directed verdict and a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (j.n.o.v.) may be obtained. This rule was amended on December 1, 1991; proceedings below were concluded prior to the rule's amendment and therefore we are guided by the prior version of Rule 50. 17 Under Rule 50 a party may make a motion for a directed verdict at the close of the evidence offered by an opponent. A party may also make a motion for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence. If the motion at the close of all evidence is denied or for any reason is not granted, the court is deemed to have submitted the action to the jury subject to a later determination of the legal questions raised by the motion. Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b). 18 If the movant is unhappy with the judgment entered on the jury verdict, that party may then move for a j.n.o.v. This must be done [n]ot later than 10 days after entry of judgment. Id. Due to Seventh Amendment concerns, a motion for a j.n.o.v. ordinarily cannot be made unless it was preceded by a motion for a directed verdict made at the close of all the evidence. Benson v. Allphin, 786 F.2d 268, 273 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 848, 107 S.Ct. 172, 93 L.Ed.2d 109 (1986). 19 PFW does not dispute that Gannett made a written motion for a directed verdict at the close of PFW's case in chief. The court responded to that motion by requesting Gannett's consent to the Court taking the matter under advisement until the conclusion of the case to permit the defendant's case to be put on in its entirety so that whatever ultimately occurs in this case, the Appellate Court would have a complete record. Tr. at 699. Gannett consented and the district court took the matter under advisement. Id. at 700. 20 PFW does argue, however, that Gannett failed to renew its motion for a directed verdict at the close of all evidence and therefore the district court had no authority to grant the directed verdict. The district court, however, found that Gannett had renewed its motion. Pro Football Weekly, Inc. v. Gannett Co., Inc., No. 85 C 6612, 1991 WL 256693, at  2 (N.D.Ill. Nov. 20, 1991). 21 Before submitting the case to the jury, Judge Nordberg held jury instruction conferences with the litigants' attorneys. During one such conference, following the close of all evidence, counsel for Gannett repeatedly asserted his client's objection to instructing the jury as to PFW's breach of fiduciary duty claim. At one point Gannett's counsel said, As your Honor knows, we have throughout this case insisted that we never became a fiduciary and never owed the plaintiff a fiduciary duty. We think the evidence is overwhelming on that point. Tr. at 1267. In response, Judge Nordberg replied, All right. This is part of, I know, your motion for directed verdict at the close of all the evidence.... I'll take it that you've made that motion and I'll take it under advisement. Id. at 1269-70. 22 Although Gannett had not explicitly made another motion for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence, we agree with the district court that the above discussion constitutes a sufficient renewal of Gannett's earlier motion. As the district court aptly noted, [C]ounsel for Gannett would have looked silly making an additional motion for directed verdict after the Court stated that it considered the motion already made. Pro Football Weekly, 1991 WL 256693, at  2. We therefore hold that the district court did have the power to direct a verdict for Defendant. Thus we need not address the question of whether a renewal of Gannett's earlier directed verdict motion was even necessary. Cf. Farley Transp. Co. v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., 786 F.2d 1342, 1346 (9th Cir.1985) (reservation of ruling on motion for directed verdict constitutes judicial indication that renewal of the motion is not necessary to preserve the moving party's rights). 23 We next address the question of whether it was proper for the court to direct the verdict.