Wed, Sep 17, 2014, 6:00 AM EDT - U.S. Markets open in 3 hrs 30 mins

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Vringo, Inc. Message Board

  • casp321 casp321 Jan 23, 2013 11:19 PM Flag

    Rules 50, 52, 59

    Rules 50, 52, 59

    FEDERAL RULES
    OF
    CIVIL PROCEDURE
    WITH FORMS
    DECEMBER 1, 2010

    FEDERAL RULES
    OF
    CIVIL PROCEDURE
    WITH FORMS
    DECEMBER 1, 2010

    Rule 50. Judgment as a Matter of Law in a Jury Trial; Related Motion
    for a New Trial; Conditional Ruling
    (a) JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW.
    (1) In General. If a party has been fully heard on an issue during
    a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury
    would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find
    for the party on that issue, the court may:
    (A) resolve the issue against the party; and
    (B) grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law
    against the party on a claim or defense that, under the
    controlling law, can be maintained or defeated only with
    a favorable finding on that issue.
    (2) Motion. A motion for judgment as a matter of law may be
    made at any time before the case is submitted to the jury. The
    motion must specify the judgment sought and the law and
    facts that entitle the movant to the judgment.
    (b) RENEWING THE MOTION AFTER TRIAL; ALTERNATIVE MOTION
    FOR A NEW TRIAL. If the court does not grant a motion for judgment
    as a matter of law made under Rule 50(a), the court is considered
    to have submitted the action to the jury subject to the
    court’s later deciding the legal questions raised by the motion. No
    later than 28 days after the entry of judgment—or if the motion
    addresses a jury issue not decided by a verdict, no later than 28
    days after the jury was discharged—the movant may file a renewed
    motion for judgment as a matter of law and may include an
    alternative or joint request for a new trial under Rule 59. In ruling
    on the renewed motion, the court may:
    (1) allow judgment on the verdict, if the jury returned a verdict;
    (2) order a new trial; or
    (3) direct the entry of judgment as a matter of law.
    (c) GRANTING THE RENEWED MOTION; CONDITIONAL RULING ON A
    MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL.
    (1) In General. If the court grants a renewed motion for judgment
    as a matter of law, it must also conditionally rule on
    any motion for a new trial by determining whether a new trial
    should be granted if the judgment is later vacated or reversed.
    The court must state the grounds for conditionally granting
    or denying the motion for a new trial.
    (2) Effect of a Conditional Ruling. Conditionally granting the
    motion for a new trial does not affect the judgment’s finality;
    if the judgment is reversed, the new trial must proceed unless
    the appellate court orders otherwise. If the motion for a new
    trial is conditionally denied, the appellee may assert error in
    that denial; if the judgment is reversed, the case must proceed
    as the appellate court orders.
    (d) TIME FOR A LOSING PARTY’S NEW-TRIAL MOTION. Any motion
    for a new trial under Rule 59 by a party against whom judgment
    as a matter of law is rendered must be filed no later than 28 days
    after the entry of the judgment.
    (e) DENYING THE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW;
    REVERSAL ON APPEAL. If the court denies the motion for judgment
    as a matter of law, the prevailing party may, as appellee, assert
    grounds entitling it to a new trial should the appellate court conclude
    that the trial court erred in denying the motion. If the appellate
    court reverses the judgment, it may order a new trial, direct
    the trial court to determine whether a new trial should be
    granted, or direct the entry of judgment.
    (As amended Jan. 21, 1963, eff. July 1, 1963; Mar. 2, 1987, eff. Aug.
    1, 1987; Apr. 30, 1991, eff. Dec. 1, 1991; Apr. 22, 1993, eff. Dec. 1, 1993;
    Apr. 27, 1995, eff. Dec. 1, 1995; Apr. 12, 2006, eff. Dec. 1, 2006; Apr.
    30, 2007, eff. Dec. 1, 2007; Mar. 26, 2009, eff. Dec. 1, 2009.)

    Rule 52. Findings and Conclusions by the Court; Judgment on Partial
    Findings
    (a) FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS.
    (1) In General. In an action tried on the facts without a jury
    or with an advisory jury, the court must find the facts specially
    and state its conclusions of law separately. The findings
    and conclusions may be stated on the record after the close of
    the evidence or may appear in an opinion or a memorandum
    of decision filed by the court. Judgment must be entered under
    Rule 58.
    (2) For an Interlocutory Injunction. In granting or refusing an
    interlocutory injunction, the court must similarly state the
    findings and conclusions that support its action.
    (3) For a Motion. The court is not required to state findings
    or conclusions when ruling on a motion under Rule 12 or 56 or,
    unless these rules provide otherwise, on any other motion.
    (4) Effect of a Master’s Findings. A master’s findings, to the
    extent adopted by the court, must be considered the court’s
    findings.
    (5) Questioning the Evidentiary Support. A party may later
    question the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the findings,
    whether or not the party requested findings, objected to
    them, moved to amend them, or moved for partial findings.
    (6) Setting Aside the Findings. Findings of fact, whether based
    on oral or other evidence, must not be set aside unless clearly
    erroneous, and the reviewing court must give due regard to
    the trial court’s opportunity to judge the witnesses’ credibility.
    (b) AMENDED OR ADDITIONAL FINDINGS. On a party’s motion filed
    no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment, the court may
    amend its findings—or make additional findings—and may amend
    the judgment accordingly. The motion may accompany a motion
    for a new trial under Rule 59.
    (c) JUDGMENT ON PARTIAL FINDINGS. If a party has been fully
    heard on an issue during a nonjury trial and the court finds
    against the party on that issue, the court may enter judgment
    against the party on a claim or defense that, under the controlling
    law, can be maintained or defeated only with a favorable finding
    on that issue. The court may, however, decline to render any judgment
    until the close of the evidence. A judgment on partial findings
    must be supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law
    as required by Rule 52(a).
    (As amended Dec. 27, 1946, eff. Mar. 19, 1948; Jan. 21, 1963, eff. July
    1, 1963; Apr. 28, 1983, eff. Aug. 1, 1983; Apr. 29, 1985, eff. Aug. 1, 1985;
    Apr. 30, 1991, eff. Dec. 1, 1991; Apr. 22, 1993, eff. Dec. 1, 1993; Apr.
    27, 1995, eff. Dec. 1, 1995; Apr. 30, 2007, eff. Dec. 1, 2007; Mar. 26, 2009,
    eff. Dec. 1, 2009.)

    Rule 59 FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 78
    (b) ENTERING JUDGMENT.
    (1) Without the Court’s Direction. Subject to Rule 54(b) and unless
    the court orders otherwise, the clerk must, without awaiting
    the court’s direction, promptly prepare, sign, and enter
    the judgment when:
    (A) the jury returns a general verdict;
    (B) the court awards only costs or a sum certain; or
    (C) the court denies all relief.
    (2) Court’s Approval Required. Subject to Rule 54(b), the court
    must promptly approve the form of the judgment, which the
    clerk must promptly enter, when:
    (A) the jury returns a special verdict or a general verdict
    with answers to written questions; or
    (B) the court grants other relief not described in this
    subdivision (b).
    (c) TIME OF ENTRY. For purposes of these rules, judgment is entered
    at the following times:
    (1) if a separate document is not required, when the judgment
    is entered in the civil docket under Rule 79(a); or
    (2) if a separate document is required, when the judgment is
    entered in the civil docket under Rule 79(a) and the earlier of
    these events occurs:
    (A) it is set out in a separate document; or
    (B) 150 days have run from the entry in the civil docket.
    (d) REQUEST FOR ENTRY. A party may request that judgment be
    set out in a separate document as required by Rule 58(a).
    (e) COST OR FEE AWARDS. Ordinarily, the entry of judgment may
    not be delayed, nor the time for appeal extended, in order to tax
    costs or award fees. But if a timely motion for attorney’s fees is
    made under Rule 54(d)(2), the court may act before a notice of appeal
    has been filed and become effective to order that the motion
    have the same effect under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
    4(a)(4) as a timely motion under Rule 59.
    (As amended Dec. 27, 1946, eff. Mar. 19, 1948; Jan. 21, 1963, eff. July
    1, 1963; Apr. 22, 1993, eff. Dec. 1, 1993; Apr. 29, 2002, eff. Dec. 1, 2002;
    Apr. 30, 2007, eff. Dec. 1, 2007.)
    Rule 59. New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment
    (a) IN GENERAL.
    (1) Grounds for New Trial. The court may, on motion, grant
    a new trial on all or some of the issues—and to any party—as
    follows:
    (A) after a jury trial, for any reason for which a new
    trial has heretofore been granted in an action at law in
    federal court; or
    (B) after a nonjury trial, for any reason for which a rehearing
    has heretofore been granted in a suit in equity in
    federal court.
    (2) Further Action After a Nonjury Trial. After a nonjury trial,
    the court may, on motion for a new trial, open the judgment
    if one has been entered, take additional testimony, amend
    findings of fact and conclusions of law or make new ones, and
    direct the entry of a new judgment.
    (b) TIME TO FILE A MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL. A motion for a new
    trial must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment
    (c) TIME TO SERVE AFFIDAVITS. When a motion for a new trial is
    based on affidavits, they must be filed with the motion. The opposing
    party has 14 days after being served to file opposing affidavits.
    The court may permit reply affidavits.
    (d) NEW TRIAL ON THE COURT’S INITIATIVE OR FOR REASONS NOT
    IN THE MOTION. No later than 28 days after the entry of judgment,
    the court, on its own, may order a new trial for any reason that
    would justify granting one on a party’s motion. After giving the
    parties notice and an opportunity to be heard, the court may
    grant a timely motion for a new trial for a reason not stated in
    the motion. In either event, the court must specify the reasons in
    its order.
    (e) MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND A JUDGMENT. A motion to alter
    or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the
    entry of the judgment.
    (As amended Dec. 27, 1946, eff. Mar. 19, 1948; Feb. 28, 1966, eff. July
    1, 1966; Apr. 27, 1995, eff. Dec. 1, 1995; Apr. 30, 2007, eff. Dec. 1, 2007;
    Mar. 26, 2009, eff. Dec. 1, 2009.)

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Rules 50, 52, 59

    • Massachusetts Civil Procedure Rule 52: Findings by the Court

      (b) Courts Other Than District Court: Amendment. Upon motion of a party made not later than 10 days after entry of judgment the court may amend its findings or make additional findings and may amend the judgment accordingly. The motion may be made with a motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 59. When findings of fact are made in actions tried by the court without a jury, the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings may thereafter be raised whether or not the party raising the question has made in the trial court an objection to such findings or has made a motion to amend them or a motion for judgment.

      ----------------

      FEDERAL RULES
      OF
      CIVIL PROCEDURE
      WITH FORMS
      DECEMBER 1, 2010

      FEDERAL RULES
      OF
      CIVIL PROCEDURE
      WITH FORMS
      DECEMBER 1, 2010

      Rule 52
      (b) AMENDED OR ADDITIONAL FINDINGS. On a party’s motion filed
      no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment, the court may
      amend its findings—or make additional findings—and may amend
      the judgment accordingly. The motion may accompany a motion
      for a new trial under Rule 59.

    • Rules 52, 59

      • 1 Reply to casp321
      • Lycos
        6 Sept 2012 [cached]
        Mark Blais General Counsel and Secretary
        Mark oversees and advises Lycos' management and Board of Directors on all of its worldwide legal affairs, including corporate governance, contracts, litigation, and intellectual property. Joining Lycos in 2005, Mark previously served as the Company's Associate General Counsel and Deputy General Counsel.

        ------------

        Mark Blais
        General Counsel and Secretary

        Mark oversees and advises Lycos' management and Board of Directors on all of its worldwide legal affairs, including corporate governance, contracts, litigation, and intellectual property. Joining Lycos in 2005, Mark previously served as the Company's Associate General Counsel and Deputy General Counsel.

        Prior to joining Lycos, Mark was an associate in the commercial litigation departments of the law firms of Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue in Cleveland, OH and Goodwin Procter LLC in Boston, MA.

        Mark graduated from Tufts University in 1995 with a B.A. in political science and a minor in Russian language. He holds a law degree from The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law, where he served on Law Review and graduated magna cum laude in 1999.

    • Rules 50, 52, 59

    • NEW PACER OUT
      j.qpublic30 by j.qpublic30 . Jan 23, 2013 4:26 PM

      I/P ENGINE, INC.,

      V.
      AOL INC., ef a/.,
      IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
      FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA!
      Norfolk Division
      Plaintiff,
      FILED
      JAN 2 3 2013

      [...]

      The parties' briefing on Plaintiffs Motion for Post-Judgment Royalties (ECF No. 822) and the Court's consideration of said motion shall be postponed until after the Court rules on the parties' post-trial motions currently pending before the Court underFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 50, 52, and 59.

      • 1 Reply to casp321
      • Judicial Efficiency and Technology
        By Jamie Jacobs-May
        Candidate for Judge of the Superior Court; Office 3

        This information is provided by the candidate
        In order to meet the challenge of effectively and efficiently processing escalating numbers of cases with fewer resources, courts must: 1) consolidate and restructure, 2) tap the benefits of new technologies, and 3) appropriately use alternative models of litigation (Alternative Dispute Resolution).
        In the coming decades, case filings are expected to outpace population growth. In other words, courts will be required to process more cases than ever -- but with fewer resources.
        In 1992, the California Legislature responded to this crisis and passed laws requiring trial courts to coordinate and consolidate. Although many counties have had difficulty implementing these laws, I'm pleased that, during my term as Presiding Judge, Santa Clara County Courts did reach a consolidation agreement that brought our courts into compliance with these mandates. We combined administrative offices and even the duties of Municipal and Superior Court judges and took a significant step toward a more efficient system.

        Technology can help us take another significant step. Electronic filing of court documents, paperless court files, legal briefs submitted on CD-ROMs, and appearances in court by telephone are examples of the kinds of innovation that technology can bring to our courts to help them function more cost-effectively.

        In the electronic courtroom of the future, computer monitors will make blackboards outmoded. Computer-generated animation will make VCRs obsolete. Case exhibits won't be retrieved by the frantic fumble through piles of paper, but by the calm click of a computer mouse.

        For the most part, current advances focus on presenting evidence to jurors in more sophisticated ways, thus making often mind-numbing trials more captivating. But broader visions of courtroom technology include linking everyone involved in wholly new ways.

        To capitalize on the benefits of technology, judges must undertake the training we need to understand and effectively use the new technologies, and then work to effectively implement them in our courtrooms.

        A third strategy for improving judicial efficiency involves alternative models to the traditional approach to litigation -- particularly in issues involving civil and family law.

        Traditional litigation is very expensive and forces the parties to give up control over decision-making to a third person -- either a judge or a jury. However, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) -- mediation, arbitration, and neutral evaluation -- is often more efficient, less lengthy, and, therefore, less expensive. In addition, it gives the parties greater control in the decisions, and thereby increases their ultimate satisfaction and compliance with the outcome.

        In mediation, the parties have full control by reaching a resolution on their own, facilitated by an outside professional -- the mediator.

        Arbitration allows the parties to put on their own mini-case, which the arbitrator then resolves. In binding arbitration, the parties have agreed in advance to be bound by the decision of the arbitrator; in non-binding arbitration, they have not.

        Neutral evaluation gives the parties the benefit of a neutral third person's assessment, which can help the parties resolve their differences on their own, without resorting to the courts.

        Santa Clara County courts are now hiring an ADR director, who will recommend cases on the civil docket for ADR. By encouraging parties to use ADR, we expect that cases will resolve earlier, thus lowering costs, increasing efficiencies, and improving satisfaction with "the system."

        As a complement to ADR, judges can be enormously helpful in resolving disputes. My own philosophy is to strongly encourage settlement discussions and -- with the agreement of the parties -- to actively participate as a "settlement judge."

 
VRNG
0.9897-0.0203(-2.01%)Sep 16 4:00 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.