Piaubert

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiffs Jeanne Piaubert, S.A., and Jacques Bogart, S.A. (collectively “JPSA”), and Jeanne Piaubert Cosmetics (“JPC”) separately sued Defendant G. Thomas Macintosh, their former lawyer, and his law firm, Defendant Mackall, Crounse & Moore. Their actions were removed to federal court and consolidated for trial. At the close of the evidence, the district court granted Defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) against JPC. JPSA’s claims went to a jury, which found in Defendants’ favor. JPSA and JPC filed motions for new trial or for JMOL, which the district court rejected. Plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.

I. JPSA’S APPEAL

A. Arguments for JMOL

JPSA argues that the district court erred in denying its motion for JMOL under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b). In its motion, JPSA sought a JMOL based on (1) insufficiency of evidence; (2) JPSA’s asserted right to disgorgement of attorney fees; and (3) JPSA’s asserted right to nominal damages.

JPSA is not entitled to a JMOL. “In order to preserve the right to move for a [JMOL] under Rule 50(b), a motion under Rule 50(a) first must be made.” Desrosiers v. Flight Int’l of Fla., Inc., 156 F.3d 952 , 956…