Harper v. Tveter et al, No. 2:2013cv00889 - Document 140 (D. Utah 2015)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER on Parties' Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 9/2/2015. (blh)
Download PDF
Harper v. Tveter et al Doc. 140 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH TAYLOR HARPER, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ON PARTIES’ MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL TVETER, Case No. 2:13-CV-889 TS Defendant. District Judge Ted Stewart This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Motions for Judgement as a Matter of Law. The parties made their Motions orally at the conclusion of trial on September 2, 2015. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) provides, 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, the court may: (A) resolve the issue against the party; and (B) grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against the party on a claim or defense that, under the controlling law, can be maintained or defeated only with a favorable finding on that issue. In reviewing a Rule 50 Motion, the Court should review all of the evidence in the record. 1 However, all reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the nonmoving party and the Court does “not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence.” 2 Judgment as a matter of law is appropriate “only if the evidence points but one way and is susceptible to no reasonable inferences which may support the opposing party’s 1 Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000). 2 Id. 1 Dockets.Justia.com position.” 3 A judgment as a matter of law is appropriate “[i]f there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis . . . with respect to a claim or defense . . . under the controlling law.” 4 Having considered the evidence and arguments presented on both sides, the Court finds that neither party has shown their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. It is therefore ORDERED that both parties’ Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law are DENIED. DATED this 2nd day of September, 2015. BY THE COURT: Ted Stewart United States District Judge 3 Finley v. United States, 82 F.3d 966, 968 (10th Cir. 1996). 4 Baty v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 172 F.3d 1232, 1241 (10th Cir. 1999). 2