Civ Pro Question Forum

[perfunctory]

"The trial court may deny the motion for JMOL and grant a new trial. If it does, the order is not appealable and the new trial will proceed." I have no idea how this works. Can someone help me specifically imagine who would do what, why, and when? I am so lost on this.

[kellyfrost]

"The trial court may deny the motion for JMOL and grant a new trial. If it does, the order is not appealable and the new trial will proceed." I have no idea how this works. Can someone help me specifically imagine who would do what, why, and when? I am so lost on this.

This depends on the facts.

[lymenheimer]

I understand this rule, but I don't understand your question...

[mjb447]

Party files a motion for JMOL after trial arguing that no reasonable jury could have made a particular finding (and therefore the jury in that case acted unreasonably). Court analyzes the motion and finds that, while the high standard for JMOL isn't met, the often lower and generally squishier standard for a new trial is met. FRCP 59(a)(1) ("after a jury trial, for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an action at law in federal court"). Court can grant a new trial by party request or on its own motion. FRCP 50(b)(2), 59(d). Because a new trial is occurring, there's no final appealable order yet, so you don't get to take an appeal until the second trial is over.

I'm not sure what your question is, I guess.

[perfunctory]

Let me know if my thought process is right. When:

JML and new trial denied - side being denied says "i appeal this trial judge's denial of my jml and new trial." immediately appealable.

JML and new trial granted - losing side says "i appeal both." immediately appealable.

JML granted and new trial denied - losing side says "i appeal both" immediately appealable.

JML denied and new trial granted - side being denied says "i appeal the jml denial" but since there will be a new trial, not immediately appealable.

Not sure if i'm just massively oversimplifying and flawed...

I'm asking why those 3 are immediately appealable, but why the last one isn't

[lymenheimer]

Let me know if my thought process is right. When:

JML and new trial denied - side being denied says "i appeal this trial judge's denial of my jml and new trial." immediately appealable.

A verdict has been rendered, and there is an appealable decision (the JML).

JML and new trial granted - losing side says "i appeal both." immediately appealable.

JML is the verdict granted. The new trial is in the alternative, if the appeals court reverses the JML and remands. Therefore there is an appealable decision.

JML granted and new trial denied - losing side says "i appeal both" immediately appealable.

See above, just no "alternative" decision. Appeals court can then reverse and remand for a new trial or to render verdict consistent with appellant decision.

JML denied and new trial granted - side being denied says "i appeal the jml denial" but since there will be a new trial, not immediately appealable.

No appealable order has been rendered because the new trial has been granted. The trial must proceed to a conclusion before it can be appealed.

Not sure if i'm just massively oversimplifying and flawed...

I'm asking why those 3 are immediately appealable, but why the last one isn't

Think about it as a conclusion to the trial proceedings. All of the first 3 come to a conclusion. The last one does not.

[perfunctory]

I think I got it. Thank you. I can finally go home...

[mjb447]

Let me know if my thought process is right. When:

JML and new trial denied - side being denied says "i appeal this trial judge's denial of my jml and new trial." immediately appealable.

A verdict has been rendered, and there is an appealable decision (the JML).

JML and new trial granted - losing side says "i appeal both." immediately appealable.

JML is the verdict granted. The new trial is in the alternative, if the appeals court reverses the JML and remands. Therefore there is an appealable decision.

JML granted and new trial denied - losing side says "i appeal both" immediately appealable.

See above, just no "alternative" decision. Appeals court can then reverse and remand for a new trial or to render verdict consistent with appellant decision.

JML denied and new trial granted - side being denied says "i appeal the jml denial" but since there will be a new trial, not immediately appealable.

No appealable order has been rendered because the new trial has been granted. The trial must proceed to a conclusion before it can be appealed.

Not sure if i'm just massively oversimplifying and flawed...

I'm asking why those 3 are immediately appealable, but why the last one isn't

Think about it as a conclusion to the trial proceedings. All of the first 3 come to a conclusion. The last one does not.

+1. In federal court you can generally appeal only from a judgment, and a judgment is typically entered only when a case is fully concluded with respect to all parties and claims. I seem to vaguely remember that, even if a court partially dismisses or grants partial summary judgment, you generally can't appeal the dismissal/SJ grant decision until the rest of the case is decided (in federal court, not unusual for this to happen years later).