Conley

Conley v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

Good Law
286 F. Supp. 2d 1097·2002 WL 32179016·2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26801
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaDecember 26, 2002C 00-1740 SBACalifornia8,249 words

Opinion

Opinion

Armstrong, J.

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

At the close of plaintiffs’ case-in-chief at trial, defendants filed two motions for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a): Defendants’ Joint Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (the “Joint Motion”) and Defendant R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (“Reynolds’ Motion”). Plaintiffs have filed respective oppositions to the motions.

These motions are now before the Court. Having read and considered the papers submitted, having reviewed the transcript of the proceedings, and being fully informed, the Court DENIES the motions WITHOUT PREJUDICE to their being renewed after plaintiffs have been afforded an opportunity to correct the evi-dentiary deficiencies identified in this Order.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a)(1) provides:

In entertaining a motion for judgment as a matter of law, a federal court sitting in diversity is bound to apply state law in determining whether the evidence is sufficient to support a verdict in favor of the non-moving party. See In re Beverly Hills Fire Litig., 695 F.2d 207,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.