⚡ 10-Second Rule
If one side's evidence gives a reasonable jury nothing to work with, the judge can decide — but you must ask before the jury does, or you can't ask again after.
🧒 ELI-10 Scene
Judge Rosa runs the county pie contest. Halfway through tasting, Sam's entry turns out to be an empty tin. No filling, no crust, nothing to score. Rosa can pull it from the contest right then. No reasonable taster could give an empty tin a ribbon. But Rosa has a strict fairness rule about complaints. Want her to reconsider a ribbon after it's pinned on? You must have complained before the ribbons went out. Speak up mid-contest, and you may renew the complaint later. Stay silent until the ribbons are handed out, and your complaint is dead. Rosa also never re-tastes: she asks only whether any sensible taster could have scored it, reading close calls kindly for the winner.
⚖️ Actual Rule
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a), once "a party has been fully heard on an issue" during a jury trial, the court may grant judgment as a matter of law against that party if "a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue." The 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 entitling the movant to it. Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(2). If the court denies the motion and the jury returns a verdict, the movant may file a renewed motion under Rule 50(b) "[n]o later than 28 days after the entry of judgment," and may join an alternative request for a new trial under Rule 59. A Rule 50(b) motion is available only if the party made a Rule 50(a) motion before submission to the jury, and only on grounds raised in that earlier motion. In ruling, the court applies the summary-judgment lens: it reviews the whole record, draws all reasonable inferences for the nonmovant, and may not weigh the evidence or make credibility determinations. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150–51 (2000). [NJ-VARIANT: flagged for future Eli Explains NJ Law module]
ELI-10 translation: the judge can end things when one side's evidence is an empty tin — but the after-verdict do-over exists only if you asked before the verdict.
🔍 Ask These Questions
- Has the party opposing the motion been fully heard on the issue? (Did they finish putting on their evidence for this point?)
- Is there a legally sufficient evidentiary basis — could any reasonable jury find for them? (Is there anything real in the tin?)
- Is the judge viewing evidence favorably to the nonmovant, without weighing or credibility calls? (Close calls go to the side being cut off; no re-tasting.)
- For a post-verdict (50(b)) motion: did the movant make a 50(a) motion before the case went to the jury? (No pre-verdict ask means no post-verdict do-over.)
- Does the renewed motion stick to grounds raised in the earlier motion? (You can only renew the complaint you actually made.)
- Was the 50(b) motion filed within 28 days after entry of judgment? (Miss the deadline, lose the do-over.)
⚠️ Bar Trap
Exam language: Examiners have a party skip the Rule 50(a) motion at trial, then file a facially meritorious Rule 50(b) motion within 28 days of judgment, and bait you into granting it because the evidence truly was insufficient. The prerequisite is fatal: without a pre-verdict motion, the renewed motion is unavailable regardless of merit. A second version buries the trap in dates — a 50(b) motion filed more than 28 days after entry of judgment is untimely.
ELI-10: The after-verdict do-over is locked behind two doors. Door one: you asked before the jury decided. Door two: you re-asked within 28 days. Miss either door and even a winning argument stays outside.
🧪 Question
A florist sued a wholesale supplier in federal court for breach of contract, and the case was tried to a jury. At the close of all the evidence, neither party moved for judgment as a matter of law, and the case was submitted to the jury, which returned a verdict for the florist. Judgment was entered the next day. Twenty days later, the supplier filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b), arguing that the florist had presented no evidence of damages, an essential element of the claim. The trial record confirms that no damages evidence was introduced.
How should the court rule on the supplier's motion?
(A) Grant it, because no reasonable jury could find for the florist without evidence of damages. (B) Grant it, because the motion was filed within 28 days after entry of judgment. (C) Deny it, because judgment as a matter of law is never available after the jury has returned its verdict. (D) Deny it, because the supplier failed to move for judgment as a matter of law before the case was submitted to the jury.
Answer: (D). A Rule 50(b) motion merely renews a Rule 50(a) motion; because the supplier never moved before submission to the jury, the renewed motion is unavailable even though the evidentiary gap is real and the filing was timely.
💡 Why the Wrong Answers Are Wrong
- (A) jumps straight to the merits; the sufficiency argument is forfeited without a pre-verdict Rule 50(a) motion.
- (B) confirms only the 28-day deadline; timeliness cannot cure the missing prerequisite motion.
- (C) erases Rule 50(b) entirely; post-verdict JMOL exists — it just requires the pre-verdict motion first.
- ELI-10: The misconception is treating the do-over as a fresh request. It's only a repeat — and you can't repeat a question you never asked.
