Opinion ID: 215234
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Pre-trial Grant of JMOL

Text: Ervco challenges the district court’s pre-trial grant of Rule 50 JMOL.1 Our circuit law clearly holds that Rule 50 JMOL—whether raised by the parties or sua sponte by the district court—cannot be granted before the trial has begun and the party’s evidence on that issue has been fully heard by the jury. McSherry v. City of Long Beach, 423 F.3d 1015, 1019 (9th Cir. 2005) (reversing the district court’s grant of Rule 50 JMOL at the outset of trial, before any evidence had been presented to the jury); see also Summers v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 508 F.3d 923, 928 (9th Cir. 2007) (reversing the district court’s grant of Rule 50 JMOL during trial where the court required an offer of proof as to what the remaining witnesses would say, instead of allowing presentation of live testimony before the jury). Because the district court here granted its own Rule 50 motion for JMOL before the jury was empaneled or heard any evidence, its JMOL ruling must be reversed. 1 Rule 50(a)(1) allows a court to grant JMOL “if a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1) 3 We typically do not consider arguments on appeal which were not raised in the appellant’s opening brief. United States v. Ullah, 976 F.2d 509, 513 (9th Cir. 1992). Here, Ervco failed specifically to raise in its opening brief the argument that a pre-trial grant of JMOL is per se violative of Rule 50(a)(1). However, this court has discretion to consider claims not mentioned until oral argument where the parties subsequently briefed the issue and its omission from the opening briefs has not prejudiced either party. United States v. Gamma Tech Indus., Inc., 265 F.3d 917, 930 (9th Cir. 2001) (considering an issue not raised in the parties’ opening briefs after supplemental briefing by both parties); see also Weiser v. United States, 959 F.2d 146, 147 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that this court can decide a case on any ground supported by the record, even if that ground was not raised by the parties or relied upon by the district court). Here, both parties filed supplemental briefs on the issue, and neither party will be unduly prejudiced by our consideration of the issue. Therefore, Ervco’s argument that JMOL should not have been granted, given the language of Rule 50, can be considered.2