Party Is Obliged to Adhere to Court Rule, Not Be Misguided by Judge’s Statement

Friday, December 26, 2025

Page 1

Party Is Obliged to Adhere to Court Rule, Not Be Misguided by Judge’s Statement—Ninth Circuit

By a MetNews Staff Writer

A District Court judge’s statement in a wrongful death case that a defendant’s bid for a judgment as a matter of law could be made “at the end of the case” does not excuse the County of San Bernardino’s noncompliance with a court rule saying that any such motion must be made “before the case is submitted to the jury,” the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has declared.

The jury on May 24, 2024, returned a verdict awarding the plaintiffs $6.4 million based on the death of William Enyart while in the county’s High Desert Detention Facility. His death was attributed to alcohol withdrawal.

Four days after the verdict, the county renewed its earlier motion for judgment as a matter of law. Judge R. Gary Klausner denied it.

The Ninth Circuit, in a memorandum opinion filed Tuesday, declined to address the merits of the appeal, saying that the county forfeited the issue by virtue of the tardiness of its motion. The panel—composed of Circuit Judges Bridget S, Bade and Kenneth Kiyul Lee and Senior Circuit Judge Carlos T. Bea—said:

“While the district court’s statement may have been somewhat confusing, the County still had a duty to move for judgment as a matter of law before the case was submitted to the jury under Rule 50’s text and our caselaw….Neither the district court nor a party can countermand the clear text of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”

The judges commented:

“[T]he purpose of the requirement is to discourage sandbagging—remaining silent about the deficiency until it is too late to correct except by way of a new trial….Once the opportunity to cure passes, so too does the opportunity to object.”

The panel relied on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 50(a)(2), which provides, in part:

“A motion for judgment as a matter of law may be made at any time before the case is submitted to the jury.”

The judges did not explain the inapplicability of Rule 50(b) cited by Klausner in denying the county’s motion. It says:

“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…the movant may file a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law….”

The case is Enyart v. County of San Bernardino, 24-6083.