5.1 Judgment as a Matter of Law, New Trials & Relief from Judgment
Key Takeaways
- Judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a) may be granted after a party has been fully heard on an issue if a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for that party.
- A renewed Rule 50(b) motion must be filed no later than 28 days after entry of judgment and may raise only grounds asserted in a pre-verdict Rule 50(a) motion.
- A new trial may be granted under Rule 59 for prejudicial error or a verdict against the clear weight of the evidence, where the judge may weigh evidence; the motion is due within 28 days after entry of judgment.
- Remittitur is permitted in federal court, but additur violates the Seventh Amendment (Dimick v. Schiedt).
- Rule 60(b) motions based on mistake, newly discovered evidence, or fraud must be made within a reasonable time and no more than one year after the judgment; void judgments and other grounds require only a reasonable time.
5.1 Judgment as a Matter of Law, New Trials & Relief from Judgment
After the evidence closes, parties have several ways to challenge the result: ask the court to take the case from the jury, ask for a new trial, ask the court to change the judgment, or, later, ask for relief from a final judgment. Each motion has its own standard and a strict deadline.
Trial Motions: JMOL and Renewed JMOL (Rule 50)
Federal practice replaces the traditional common law terms "directed verdict" and "judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV)" with Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL) and Renewed Judgment as a Matter of Law (RJMOL).
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| RULE 50 DISPOSITIVE TRIAL MOTIONS |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pre-Verdict Motion: JMOL (Rule 50(a)) |
| - Standard: "A reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary |
| basis to find for the party on that issue." |
| - Timing: Made AFTER the non-moving party has been "fully heard on an issue" |
| during a jury trial, but BEFORE the case is submitted to the jury. |
| - Judicial Review: Evidence viewed in light most favorable to non-movant. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
| CRITICAL PREREQUISITE:
| Movant MUST make a Rule 50(a) motion
| during trial to preserve the issue!
v
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Post-Verdict Motion: Renewed JMOL (Rule 50(b)) |
| - Standard: Same standard as Rule 50(a). |
| - Timing: Must be filed no later than 28 DAYS after the entry of judgment. |
| - Strict Limitation: Movant CANNOT raise any ground in an RJMOL motion that was |
| not specifically raised in its pre-verdict Rule 50(a) motion. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The Strict Rule 50(b) Trap: The requirement of a pre-verdict Rule 50(a) motion is an absolute prerequisite anchored in the Seventh Amendment Reexamination Clause. If a party fails to move for JMOL under Rule 50(a) before the case is submitted to the jury, that party has waived the right to move for Renewed JMOL under Rule 50(b) after the verdict, and appellate courts cannot direct entry of judgment in that party's favor.
Motion for a New Trial (Rule 59)
A motion for a new trial under Rule 59 allows the trial judge to correct trial errors or prevent a miscarriage of justice.
Timing and Grounds
- A motion for a new trial must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment (Rule 59(b)).
- Grounds for a new trial include: (1) prejudicial trial errors (erroneous evidentiary rulings, flawed jury instructions); (2) attorney, witness, or juror misconduct; (3) newly discovered evidence that could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence before trial; or (4) the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence.
Distinguishing JMOL from New Trial
Under Rule 50, the judge asks whether any reasonable jury could have reached the verdict; the judge cannot weigh evidence or judge credibility. In contrast, under Rule 59, when evaluating whether the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence, the trial judge is free to weigh the evidence and evaluate witness credibility.
Damages Adjustments: Remittitur vs. Additur
- Remittitur (Constitutional): If the court determines that the jury's verdict is shockingly excessive, it may offer the plaintiff a choice: accept a reduced damages amount (remittitur) or submit to a new trial on damages. Remittitur is fully permitted in federal court.
- Additur (Unconstitutional): If the verdict is shockingly inadequate, may the federal court give the defendant the choice of paying an increased damages amount or facing a new trial? No. The Supreme Court held in Dimick v. Schiedt (1935) that additur violates the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in federal courts.
Additional Post-Trial Rules
Rule 50 Details
- Form of the motion: A Rule 50(a) motion may be made at any time before the case is submitted to the jury and must specify the judgment sought and the law and facts that entitle the movant to it.
- Renewal deadline: A renewed motion must be filed no later than 28 days after entry of judgment—or, if the motion addressed a jury issue not decided by a verdict, no later than 28 days after the jury was discharged—and may include an alternative or joint request for a new trial.
- Conditional new-trial ruling (Rule 50(c)): If the court grants a renewed motion, it must also conditionally rule on any new-trial motion, stating the grounds, so the appellate court has both rulings.
- Appellate consequences: Without a proper post-verdict Rule 50(b) motion, a court of appeals cannot order judgment or a new trial based on insufficiency of the evidence (Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 2006). But a purely legal issue resolved at summary judgment is preserved for appeal without being renewed in a Rule 50 motion (Dupree v. Younger, 2023).
Rule 59 Details
- In a jury trial, the court may grant a new trial on all or some issues for any reason for which a new trial has traditionally been granted in federal court; after a nonjury trial, it may open the judgment, take additional testimony, and enter a new judgment (Rule 59(a)).
- The court may order a new trial on its own within 28 days after entry of judgment for any reason that would justify granting one on a party's motion, and—after giving the parties notice and an opportunity to be heard—may grant a timely motion for a reason the motion did not state. Either way, the order must specify the reasons (Rule 59(d)).
- A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment (Rule 59(e)).
- The court cannot extend the 28-day deadlines under Rules 50(b), 52(b), 59(b), (d), and (e) (Rule 6(b)(2)).
Relief from a Judgment or Order (Rule 60)
- Clerical mistakes (Rule 60(a)): The court may correct a clerical mistake or oversight or omission at any time; once an appeal is docketed, correction requires the appellate court's leave.
- Grounds under Rule 60(b):
- Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
- Newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
- Fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
- The judgment is void;
- The judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or
- Any other reason that justifies relief.
- Timing (Rule 60(c)(1)): Every Rule 60(b) motion must be made within a reasonable time, and motions under grounds (1), (2), and (3) must be made no more than one year after entry of the judgment or order. A Rule 60(b) motion does not affect the judgment's finality or suspend its operation.
- Recent clarifications: A judge's legal error counts as a "mistake" under Rule 60(b)(1), so the one-year limit applies (Kemp v. United States, 2022). Relief under the catch-all ground (6) requires extraordinary circumstances, and that standard is not relaxed because the movant hopes to amend a dismissed complaint (BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman, 2025).
- Other routes: Rule 60(d) preserves an independent action for relief and the court's power to set aside a judgment for fraud on the court.
Entry of Judgment (Rule 58)
Every judgment must be set out in a separate document, with exceptions for orders disposing of certain post-trial motions. A judgment is entered when it is entered in the civil docket and either set out in a separate document or 150 days have run from its docket entry. Entry of judgment starts the clocks for post-trial motions and appeals.
In a federal civil rights action tried before a jury, the plaintiff presented testimony and documentary evidence and rested. The defendant did not move for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a). The defendant then presented defense witnesses and rested. Neither party moved for judgment as a matter of law at the close of all evidence. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $500,000, and judgment was entered accordingly. Twenty days after the entry of judgment, the defendant filed a Rule 50(b) renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, arguing that no reasonable jury could have found that the defendant acted under color of state law. How should the district court rule on the defendant's Rule 50(b) motion?
A federal court entered judgment for a supplier after a bench trial on a breach-of-contract claim. Fourteen months later, the buyer discovered e-mails showing that the supplier's president had testified falsely at trial about when the goods were shipped. The buyer immediately moved for relief from the judgment under Rule 60(b)(3), alleging fraud and misconduct by the opposing party. How should the court rule on the motion?