Warrillow

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff Lisa Warrillow appeals the district court’s denial of her Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) and her Rule 59 motion for a new trial after a jury verdict in favor of defendant, Qualcomm, in her employment discrimination suit pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 (2000). Specifically, Warrillow challenges the sufficiency of the defendant’s evidence presented at trial, the jury instructions, and a number of the district court’s evidentiary rulings. We affirm.

Warrillow did not satisfy the procedural prerequisites for her JMOL motion. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) requires that a party move for a JMOL before submission of the case to the jury. In the absence of a Rule 50(a) motion, a party is precluded from later challenging the sufficiency of the evidence either before the district court through a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law or on appeal. Farley Transp. Co., Inc. v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., 786 F.2d 1342, 1347 (9th Cir.1986). Here, Warrillow failed to make the required Rule 50(a) motion. Her closing argument to the jury was not such a motion. We construe this…