The court “view[s] the entire record in the light most favorable to the non-movant, draw[s] all factual inferences in favor of the non-moving party, and leav[es] credibility determinations, the weighing of evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts to the jury.” Aetna Cas. & Surety Co. v. Pendleton Detectives of Miss., Inc., 182 F.3d 376, 378 (5th Cir. 1999) (quotation marks omitted). The court may grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law “[o]nly when the facts and reasonable inferences are such that a reasonable juror could not reach a contrary verdict.”

We "view the entire record in the light most favorable to the non-movant, drawing all factual inferences in favor of the non-moving party, and 'leaving credibility determinations, the weighing of evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts to the jury.' " Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Pendleton Detectives of Miss., Inc., 182 F.3d 376, 378 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting Conkling v. Turner, 18 F.3d 1285, 1300 (5th Cir. 1994)). A motion for judgment as a matter of law may be granted "[o]nly when the facts and reasonable inferences are such that a reasonable juror could not reach a contrary verdict."

OneBeacon Ins. Co. v. T.Wade Welch & Assocs., 841 F.3d 669, 675 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting SMI Owen Steel Co. v. Marsh U.S.A., Inc., 520 F.3d 432, 437 (5th Cir. 2008)). The court “view[s] the entire record in the light most favorable to the non-movant, drawing all factual inferences in favor of the non-moving party, and ‘leaving credibility determinations, the weighing of evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts to the jury.'” Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.v. Pendleton Detectives of Mississippi, Inc., 182 F.3d 376, 378 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting Conkling v. Turner, 18 F.3d 1285, 1300 (5th Cir. 1994)).

The Court may not, however, reevaluate the weight of the evidence or the credibility of the witnesses. Aetna v. Pendleton Detectives of Miss., 182 F.3d 376, 378 (5th Cir. 1999). A court of appeals reviews the district court's judgment as a matter of law de novo.

Under Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a district court "may grant a judgment as a matter of law if after a party, has been fully heard by the jury on an issue, `there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to have found for that party with respect to that issue.'" Aetna Cas. Sur. Co. v. Pendleton Detectives of Miss., Inc., 182 F.3d 376, 377-78 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting FED.R.Civ.P. 50). "[A] court should grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law `not only when the non-movant presents no evidence, but also when, there is not a sufficient conflict of substantial evidence to create a jury question.'" Id. at 504 (quoting Travis v. Board of Regents of the Univ. of Tex. Sys., 122 F.3d 259, 263 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1148, 118 S.Ct. 1166, 140 L.Ed.2d 176 (1998)).

E.g., Ford v. Cimarron Ins. Co., 230 F.3d 828, 830 (5th Cir.2000). Our review is de novo, using the same standard as the district court. E.g., Aetna Cos. Sur. Co. v. Pendleton Detectives of Miss., Inc., 182 F.3d 376 (5th Cir.1999). In reviewing the evidence, we draw all reasonable inferences in the non-movant's favor, and "disregard all evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury is not required to believe".

he insufficiency of his case and be given the opportunity to cure any defects); see also Satcher v. Honda Motor Co., 52 F.3d 1311, 1315 (5th Cir. 1995) (reviewing the denial of a motion for JMOL after jury returned verdict and excusing technical non-compliance with Rule 50 because the purpose of the rule was met; i.e., "to enable the trial court to re-examine the question of evidentiary insufficiency as a matter of law if the jury returns a verdict contrary to the movant, and to alert the opposing party to the insufficiency before the case is submitted to the jury, thereby affording it an opportunity to cure any defects in proof should the motion have merit").See Rutherford v. Harris County, 197 F.3d 173, 179 (5th Cir. 1999) ("A court may grant a judgment as a matter of law if after a party has been fully heard by the jury on an issue, `there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to have found for that party with respect to that issue.'") (citation omitted); Aetna Cas. Sur. Co. v. Pendleton Detectives of Miss., Inc., 182 F.3d 376, 377-78 (5th Cir. 1999) (same); Conkling v. Turner, 18 F.3d 1285, 1300 (5th Cir. 1994) (same). As for other jurisdictions, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia recently indicated that a party has not been fully heard until he has submitted all of his evidence and closed his case.

Id. The granting of a judgment as a matter of law will be appropriate "if, after a party has been fully heard by the jury on an issue, `there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to [find] for that party with respect to that issue.'" Rutherford v. Harris County, Texas, 197 F.3d 173, 179 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting Aetna Cas. Sur. Co., v. Pendleton Detectives of Miss., Inc., 182 F.3d 376, 377-78 (5th Cir. 1999)) (emphasis added). Thus, for purposes of this appeal, we will review the evidence, in the most favorable light to Pizza Hut, to determine if, as a matter of law, it is sufficient to support a claim of false advertising under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.

A We review de novo the denial of Harris County's motion for judgment as a matter of law, Deffenbaugh-Williams v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 188 F.3d 278, 285 (5th Cir. 1999), applying the same standard that the district court used. Aetna Cas. Sur. Co. v. Pendleton Detectives of Miss., Inc., 182 F.3d 376, 377 (5th Cir. 1999). "A court may grant a judgment as a matter of law if after a party has been fully heard by the jury on an issue, `there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to have found for that party with respect to that issue.'"

OneBeacon Ins. Co. v. T. Wade Welch & Assocs., 841 F.3d 669, 675 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting SMI Owen Steel Co. v. Marsh U.S.A., Inc., 520 F.3d 432, 437 (5th Cir. 2008)). The court “view[s] the entire record in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, drawing all factual inferences in favor of the non-moving party, and ‘leaving credibility determinations, the weighing of evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts to the jury.'” Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Pendleton Detectives of Mississippi, Inc., 182 F.3d 376, 378 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting Conkling v. Turner, 18 F.3d 1285, 1300 (5th Cir. 1994)). A court must deny a motion for judgment as a matter of law “unless the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in the movant's favor that reasonable jurors could not reach a contrary conclusion.” Baisden v. I'm Ready Prods., Inc., 693 F.3d 491, 498 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting Flowers v. S. Reg'l Physician Servs. Inc., 247 F.3d 229, 235 (5th Cir. 2001)). “In deciding a Rule 50(b) motion, even if the court would reach a different conclusion as the trier of fact, the court is ‘not free to reweigh the evidence or to re-evaluate credibility of witnesses.'” United States ex rel. Montcrieff v. Peripheral Vascular Assocs., P.A., No. SA-17-CV-00317-XR, 2023 WL 139319, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 9, 2023) (quoting Brown v. Kinney Shoe Corp., 237 F.3d 556, 564 (5th Cir. 2001).