Unitherm Food Systems v. Swift Eckrich
Unitherm Food Systems sued Swift Eckrich, alleging that Swift had tortiously interfered with Unitherm’s prospective economic relations and claiming that Swift violated the Sherman Act by attempting to monopolize the precooked meat market. After trial, but before the jury gave its verdict, Swift filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a), based on insufficiency of the evidence. The district court denied the motion and allowed the jury to decide the issues. The jury returned verdicts for Unitherm on both of its claims. After the verdict, Swift failed to renew the motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b) and also failed to file a motion for a new trial under Rule 59. Instead, Swift appealed the denial of its Rule 50(a) motion to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence. The court affirmed the judgment with respect to the tortious interference claim but found the evidence insufficient to uphold the antitrust claim.
Question Presented:
Whether, and to what extent, a court of appeals may review the sufficiency of evidence supporting a civil jury verdict where the party requesting review
made a motion for summary judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure before submission of the case to the jury, but neither renewed that motion under Rule
50(b) after the jury’s verdict, nor moved for a new trial under Rule 59.
