![jmol rule 50 jmol rule 50](https://www.morgansl.com/application/files/thumbnails/news_views_events_full/3815/9281/9150/210618_Rule_50_-_Banner_2.jpg)
In their post-trial brief seeking JMOL under Rule 50(b), the defendants argued-quoting from case law-that “the New York standard for imposing punitive damages is a strict one,” that “New York permits punitive damages only in singularly rare cases,” and that the plaintiff must prove “exceptional” misconduct implying “a criminal indifference to civil obligations” in order to establish punitive liability. In Allen, the jury was instructed without objection that it could award punitive damages if it found that the defendants engaged in “wanton and reckless” conduct-defined as conduct that “demonstrates conscious indifference and utter disregard of its effect upon the health, safety, and rights of others and is deemed so outrageous as to allow an award.” This was error, because the Supreme Court has made clear that parties may argue for JMOL based on legal standards that they did not seek to have included in the jury instructions. The district court held that, in arguing insufficiency of the evidence, the defendants were bound by the liability standard set forth in the jury instructions and had waived the right to invoke the seemingly more demanding standard set forth in case law cited in their post-trial brief. Although the error did not affect the decision’s outcome, the issue arises in other cases with some frequency and could make a difference in this case on appeal. In this post, I want to address a significant flaw in the district court’s reasoning concerning the defendants’ challenge to punitive liability.
![jmol rule 50 jmol rule 50](https://www.infinitysolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/Infinity-Infographic-for-Jordan-Do-you-have-trouble-budgeting_@27Aug-02.jpg)
#Jmol rule 50 trial#
Despite the suggestion of some news reports that the defendants are now on the hook for the $9 billion, the district court has not yet ruled on the defendants’ separate motion for a new trial under Rule 59, which argues among other things that the punitive damages are excessive.
![jmol rule 50 jmol rule 50](https://www.swiftsalary.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/50-30-20-rule-330x200.png)
On August 28, the district court in the Western District of Louisiana issued a ruling denying the defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on liability for punitive damages and other issues. The case garnered headlines earlier this year when the jury awarded an astounding $9 billion in punitive damages against the two defendants. Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc., a product-liability action involving the diabetes drug Actos. We’ve been following the post-trial proceedings in Allen v.