If the motion for judgment as a matter of law is denied, the party who prevailed on that motion may, as respondent on appeal, assert grounds entitling the party to a new trial in the event the appellate court concludes that the trial court erred in denying the motion for judgment. If the appellate court reverses the judgment, nothing in this rule precludes it from determining that the respondent is entitled to a new trial, or from directing the trial court to determine whether a new trial shall be granted.
Minn. R. Civ. P. 50.04
Although the text of this Rule 50.02is not changed substantively by these amendments, it is worth noting thatRule 59.03, governing the time for the time from 15 days to 30 days for filing the motion and from 30 days to 60 days for having the motion heard. This amendment as the practical effect of extending the time for filing a motion underRule 50 becauseRule 50.02(c) incorporates the filing and hearing time limits of Rule 59.
Advisory Committee Comment-2006 Amendment
Rule 50 is amended in toto to adopt various changes made in 1991 to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50. The 1991 amendment of the federal rule was made to remove the archaic language and procedures of directing verdicts and granting j.n.o.v. The amended rule states a standard that the former rule already recognized: a uniform standard for motions made after trial begins of a “motion for judgment as a matter of law.” The purpose of the change is two-fold: to adopt names that better describe the role of the motions and, because the motions essentially apply the same standard, to give them a common name.
This change is not intended to change substantive practice relating to these motions. The federal rule amendment in 1991 was not intended to change the actual practice under that rule. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a), Advisory Comm. Notes-1991 Amend. The federal courts have recognized the non-substantive nature of the amendment. See 9A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure ยง 2521, at 243 n.15 and accompanying text (2d ed. 1995) (collecting cases).
Minnesota practice differs from federal practice in one important respect-former Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 did not have the express provision of Minn. R. Civ. P. 50.02(a) allowing a motion for judgment n.o.v. to be brought “whether or not the party has moved for a directed verdict,” and the current version of Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 lacks equivalent language with regard to motions for judgment as a matter of law. Because the amended Minnesota Rule 50.02 is not intended to change Minnesota practice in this respect, the amended rule retains the concept that a motion for judgment as a matter of law may be brought after submission of the case to the jury, whether or not such a motion was brought before submission to the jury.
The timing provisions of the federal rule have been changed slightly to accommodate Minnesota procedure including that relating to the service and filing of post-decision motions. Like the current rule, motions under Rule 50 must be served and filed in accordance with the timing mechanism and deadlines of Minn. R. Civ. P. 59.