Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Teter v. Project Veritas Action Fund

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Asheville Division

June 7, 2019

SHIRLEY TETER, Plaintiff,
v.
PROJECT VERITAS ACTION FUND, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          Martin Reidinger, Judge

         THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendants' oral motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

         I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         In this action, the Plaintiff Shirley Teter asserts a claim for defamation based on videos published by the Defendants. The Plaintiff alleges that these videos falsely implicate her involvement in coordinated disruptions and violence carried out in conjunction with the 2016 presidential election.

         The matter proceeded to a jury trial on May 20, 2019. Upon conclusion of the Plaintiff's evidence, the Defendants moved for the entry of judgment as a matter of law on the Plaintiff's defamation claim. The Court orally granted the Defendants' motion on May 22, 2019, advising that a written order would follow. [Minute Entry dated May 22, 2019].

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Rule 50(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

         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.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1). “Rule 50(a) allows a party to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence before a case is submitted to the jury[.]” Belk, Inc. v. Meyer Corp., U.S., 679 F.3d 146, 154 (4th Cir. 2012). A Rule 50(a)

         motion “tests the legal sufficiency of a claim, that is, assesses whether the claim should succeed or fail because the evidence developed at trial was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain the claim.” Id. at 155. In reviewing a motion for judgment as a matter of law, the Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Dennis v. Columbia Colleton Med. Ctr., Inc., 290 F.3d 639, 645 (4th Cir. 2002).

         III. DISCUSSION

         A. Plaintiff's Defamation Claim Fails as ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.