🏛️
Civil Procedure • RJMOL
CIVPRO#062
Legal Definition
A RJMOL is a motion that asks the judge to override the jury's verdict. In California, a party may not make a motion for RJMOL unless they first moved for a directed verdict on the same grounds during the trial.
Plain English Explanation
In California, a Renewed Judgment as a Matter of Law (RJMOL) is a legal motion that asks the judge to ignore or change the jury's verdict. However, a party cannot file for a RJMOL unless they first requested a directed verdict during the trial on the same issues. A directed verdict is when a party asks the judge to decide the case in their favor before it even goes to the jury, arguing that the evidence is so clear that no reasonable jury could decide otherwise.
Here’s how California's rules compare to the federal rules:
(1) Prerequisite Motion:
California Rule: In California, you must first make a directed verdict request during the trial before you can ask for a RJMOL. This means you have to challenge the evidence while the trial is still ongoing, giving the judge a chance to fix any legal problems before the jury makes a decision.
Federal Rule: In federal courts, you also need to ask for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) during the trial, but you can do this at any point before the jury gets to make its decision. If you initially asked for JMOL and it was denied, you can then file for a RJMOL after the jury has rendered its verdict.
(2) Timing and Flexibility:
California Rule: The motion for a directed verdict must happen during the trial, which can limit when you can raise these arguments.
Federal Rule: Federal courts give you more flexibility. You can challenge the verdict both before and after the jury has made its decision, allowing you to address issues at different stages of the trial.
(3) Terminology:
While both systems deal with similar ideas, the terms used may differ slightly, which can add to the confusion.
Put simply, both California and federal courts allow for challenges to the jury's decision, but California’s requirement for an earlier directed verdict makes the process more strict, whereas federal rules offer more chances to raise these challenges throughout the trial.
Here’s how California's rules compare to the federal rules:
(1) Prerequisite Motion:
California Rule: In California, you must first make a directed verdict request during the trial before you can ask for a RJMOL. This means you have to challenge the evidence while the trial is still ongoing, giving the judge a chance to fix any legal problems before the jury makes a decision.
Federal Rule: In federal courts, you also need to ask for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) during the trial, but you can do this at any point before the jury gets to make its decision. If you initially asked for JMOL and it was denied, you can then file for a RJMOL after the jury has rendered its verdict.
(2) Timing and Flexibility:
California Rule: The motion for a directed verdict must happen during the trial, which can limit when you can raise these arguments.
Federal Rule: Federal courts give you more flexibility. You can challenge the verdict both before and after the jury has made its decision, allowing you to address issues at different stages of the trial.
(3) Terminology:
While both systems deal with similar ideas, the terms used may differ slightly, which can add to the confusion.
Put simply, both California and federal courts allow for challenges to the jury's decision, but California’s requirement for an earlier directed verdict makes the process more strict, whereas federal rules offer more chances to raise these challenges throughout the trial.
