Opinion
Civil Action No. 11-cv-01468-WJM-BNB
02-27-2015
Judge William J. Martínez
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RULE 50(b) MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW FOLLOWING AMENDMENT OF JUDGMENT
On February 3, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff's Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter Judgment, which reinstated the full amount of the jury verdict on the breach of contract claims. (ECF No. 406.) The Court directed the entry of an amended judgment, which was entered the same day. (ECF No. 407.) Two days later, the Court denied Defendant's Rule 50(b) Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, finding that Plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence at trial to support the jury's verdict. (ECF No. 408.)
On February 20, 2015, Defendant filed a Supplemental Rule 50(b) Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law ("Motion"), which renews the arguments raised in its original Rule 50(b) Motion, but directs those arguments towards the Amended Judgment. (ECF No. 409.) In the Motion, Defendants states that it "recognizes that the Court has rejected Jeppesen's arguments with respect to these issues in ruling upon Jeppesen's Rule 50(a) and 50(b) motions, as well as SolidFX's Rule 59(e) motion, but presents this supplemental Rule 50(b) motion in response to the Amended Judgment to ensure preservation of its appellate rights." (Id. at 1.)
As Defendant candidly notes, the Court has repeatedly rejected the arguments raised in the Motion. (See, e.g., ECF Nos. 406 & 408.) The instant Motion includes no new information that would alter the Court's prior analysis. As such, the Court finds that it need not substantively address the arguments raised in the Motion, and instead incorporates the reasoning from its prior Orders. (Id.)
Accordingly, Defendant's Supplemental Rule 50(b) Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Following Amendment of the Judgment (ECF No. 409) is DENIED.
Dated this 27th day of February, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/_________
William J. Martínez
United States District Judge