Appellate Law

Court Underscores Distinction Between Moving for JML and Challenging Jury Charges

A defendant correctly moved at trial for judgment as a matter of law (JML) on the ground that the evidence did not raise a jury question. In arguing that the defendant had to challenge the correctness of the jury charges in order to preserve this JML argument, the plaintiffs were confusing different legal phenomena. Cook’s Pest Control, Inc. v. Rebar, Nos. 1050029, 1050128 (Ala. Feb. 20, 2009).

The plaintiffs won a multi-claim jury verdict. The defendant had sought a JML at all proper times in the circuit court; and, when that court denied its final, post-judgment JML motion, the defendant appealed.

The plaintiffs largely ignored the defendant’s appellate arguments. Instead, they argued that the defendant had “failed to preserve for review virtually all the issues it raise[d] on appeal because” the defendant had not “object[ed] to the trial court’s jury instructions on the disputed claims.”

The Alabama Supreme Court saw misunderstanding and confusion in the plaintiffs’ analysis. The defendant was not challenging the accuracy of the trial court’s instructions. Rather, it was arguing that there was not enough proof to submit the plaintiffs’ claims to the jury. These are different arguments, motions for JML being governed by procedural Rule 50, objections to jury charges by Rule 51.

To preserve its JML argument challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant was required to: 1) seek a JML at the close of all evidence, specifying lack of proof as a ground; and 2) renew this motion post-judgment, again specifying a lack of proof. The defendant had done both things, and its JML issues were thus preserved for appeal.

The plaintiffs offered a reply which may be worth discussing. The trial court, said the plaintiffs, had used a “fairly unique procedure” by addressing the defendant’s JML motion “only during the charge conference when it considered the parties’ requested jury charges.” In this context, the plaintiffs urged, the defendant was required to object to the jury charges in order to preserve its JML motion.

The Alabama Supreme Court disagreed. First, as a matter of fact, the plaintiffs had not accurately depicted the trial court’s actions. The lower court had simply denied the defendant’s JML motion and then went on to the charge conference to enumerate which claims remained in the case. Moreover — and this is perhaps the more interesting part — even if the trial court had used the charge conference to address the JML motion, this would not have added “an extra requirement to the two requirements” (listed above) for preserving a lack-of-proof JML motion. The defendant had moved for a JML at the close of all evidence, and again in a timely post-judgment filing, in both motions specifically urging a lack of proof. This was all that was needed, and the defendants had thereby preserved its arguments for appeal.

Full post as published by Alabama Appellate Watch on February 24, 2009 (boomark / email).