PastPaperHero | Motions - Posttrial motions, including motions for relief from judgment and for new trial

Learning Outcomes

This article explains posttrial motions in federal civil procedure, including:

The structure, purposes, and key differences among Rule 50 JMOL/renewed JMOL, Rule 59 new-trial and 59(e) motions, and Rule 60 relief from judgment.
The specific grounds that justify a new trial versus relief from judgment, and how those grounds are tested on the MBE.
The jurisdictional timing rules for filing JMOL, new-trial, altered-judgment, and Rule 60 motions, and the consequences of missing each deadline.
How posttrial motions preserve sufficiency-of-the-evidence and trial-error issues for appeal, and when failing to move waives review.
How timely Rule 50(b), 52(b), and 59 motions affect finality and toll the time to file a notice of appeal.
The different standards the trial court applies when deciding JMOL, new-trial, and Rule 60 motions, and the corresponding appellate standards of review.
Strategic choices between Rule 59 and Rule 60 when new evidence, fraud, mistake, or changed circumstances arise after judgment.
The special treatment of default judgments, clerical errors, excessive or inadequate verdicts, and prospective injunctions in posttrial motion practice.
Common fact-pattern traps—such as improper additur, untimely motions re-labeled under Rule 60, or attempts to attack void versus merely erroneous judgments—that frequently appear on Civil Procedure multiple-choice questions.

MBE Syllabus

For the MBE, you are required to understand federal posttrial motion practice, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

Grounds, procedure, and timing for Rule 59 motions for a new trial and to alter or amend the judgment.
Grounds, procedure, and timing for Rule 60 motions for relief from judgment.
The relationship between motions for judgment as a matter of law, renewed JMOL, and new trial motions.
The effect of posttrial motions on the running of the time to appeal.
Distinguishing situations where posttrial motions are required to preserve issues from those where direct appeal is available.
The different standards of review that appellate courts apply to posttrial rulings.

Test Your Knowledge

Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.:

Which of the following is a valid ground for a motion for a new trial in federal court?
1. The verdict is against the weight of the evidence.
2. The judge made a harmless evidentiary error.
3. The losing party failed to object to jury instructions.
4. The losing party missed the deadline for appeal.
A party seeks to set aside a final judgment based on newly discovered evidence. What is the maximum time after entry of judgment to file a Rule 60(b) motion on this ground?
1. 14 days
2. 28 days
3. 1 year
4. 2 years
Which of the following is NOT a proper ground for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)?
1. Mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect
2. The judgment is void for lack of personal jurisdiction
3. The verdict was against the weight of the evidence
4. Fraud by the opposing party

Introduction

After the verdict, the civil procedure story is not over. Federal practice provides several powerful tools that allow a party to ask the trial court to revisit what has just happened. These posttrial motions are often tested because they sit at the intersection of trial practice and appellate review, and they are governed by strict, technical deadlines.

Two sets of rules are especially important:

Rule 59, which governs motions for a new trial and motions to alter or amend a judgment.
Rule 60, which governs motions for relief from a final judgment or order.

These exist alongside motions for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50, which can be renewed after the verdict. Understanding what each motion does, when it must be filed, and what standard applies is critical for answering MBE questions.

Key Term: Motion for a New Trial
:
A Rule 59 motion asking the trial court to vacate the judgment and order a new trial because something about the first trial or verdict was seriously flawed (for example, prejudicial error, misconduct, or a verdict against the weight of the evidence).

Key Term: Relief from Judgment
:
A Rule 60 motion asking the court to set aside or modify a final judgment or order based on specific post‑judgment grounds such as mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, or a void judgment.

Key Term: Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL)
:
A Rule 50(a) motion made during trial, asking the court to take the case (or an issue) away from the jury because no reasonable jury could find for the nonmoving party on the evidence presented.

Key Term: Renewed Judgment as a Matter of Law
:
A Rule 50(b) motion made after a jury verdict, by a party who previously moved for JMOL, again arguing that no reasonable jury could have reached the verdict returned.

Posttrial motions serve several purposes:

They give the trial judge a chance to correct serious errors without an appeal.
They preserve certain issues (especially evidentiary sufficiency) for appellate review.
They can stop the clock on the time to appeal.
They sometimes give the prevailing party a chance to protect their judgment against later collateral attack.

The most common MBE traps involve confusing the grounds for a new trial with the grounds for relief from judgment, or missing the unforgiving deadlines. Questions also frequently test whether a party has properly preserved an issue for appeal by making the right posttrial motion at the right time.

This article proceeds by:

Identifying and explaining each major posttrial motion.
Comparing their grounds and standards.
Emphasising timing and appeal effects.
Highlighting classic exam patterns and traps.
Integrating bench‑trial and default‑judgment details that often appear in Civil Procedure questions.

Types of Posttrial Motions

Motion for a New Trial (Rule 59)

A party may move for a new trial in a jury or bench case. This motion asks the court to start over—either entirely or on limited issues such as damages. It is directed to the trial judge’s discretion and invites the judge to conclude that letting the verdict stand would be a serious injustice, even though the verdict may be supported by some evidence.

Rule 59 technically allows a new trial “for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an action at law in federal court” (for jury trials) or “in a suit in equity in federal court” (for bench trials). In practice, courts have distilled a set of commonly accepted grounds.

Grounds for a New Trial

Rule 59 does not list exhaustive grounds; it refers to reasons previously recognized at common law. Think of Rule 59 as the flexible, equity‑like mechanism for fixing trial‑level unfairness.

Common exam‑tested grounds include:

Verdict against the weight of the evidence:
- The judge may weigh the evidence and consider witness credibility.
- If the judge is convinced the jury “got it wrong” in a serious way, a new trial may be granted.
- This is not the same as the JMOL standard. For a new trial, it is enough that the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence, even if a reasonable jury could technically have reached it.
On the MBE, watch for fact patterns in which the judge believes that a different verdict would be more reasonable but where some evidence supports the jury’s verdict. That situation supports a new trial, not JMOL. The trial judge is allowed to “sit as a thirteenth juror” and disagree with the jury’s view of the facts; an appellate court reviewing that decision cannot simply reweigh that factual assessment due to the Seventh Amendment’s re‑examination clause.

This ground is especially important where the evidence is thin but non‑zero. For instance, if a single witness gives shaky testimony that technically supports liability, the judge cannot grant JMOL—but may still grant a new trial if the overall record convinces the judge that the verdict is seriously unjust.
Prejudicial legal error:

These are significant mistakes in applying procedure or evidence rules that likely affected the outcome:
- Erroneous admission or exclusion of evidence (for example, admitting hearsay that was the key evidence in the case, or excluding the only expert supporting the plaintiff).
- Improper jury instructions or refusal to give requested instructions that correctly stated the law.
- Improper comments by the judge (for example, suggesting a view of the evidence to the jury, or indicating that a party’s witness is not credible).
The key is prejudice: the moving party must show the error likely affected substantial rights. Harmless errors, even if obvious, do not justify a new trial. This fits with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 61, which directs courts to disregard any error that does not affect substantial rights.

On many questions, the fact pattern will tell you whether an error was harmless or prejudicial. For example, if inadmissible evidence is cumulative of many other properly admitted items, it is usually harmless. If the only evidence supporting a key element was excluded, prejudice is much more likely.

Exam trap:
- If the complaining party failed to preserve the error at trial (for example, failed to object to a jury instruction or to excluded evidence, or failed to make an offer of proof when evidence was excluded), the court is unlikely to find reversible error.
- Preservation rules from the evidence code and Rule 51 on jury instructions matter here. To preserve an objection to an instruction, counsel must object before the instructions are given (or in some cases before the jury retires), stating the specific grounds.
- In rare situations, an appellate court may review an unpreserved error under a “plain error” standard, but you should assume on the MBE that a party who did not object at trial usually cannot get a new trial based on that error.
Misconduct by counsel or parties:

Misconduct can include:
- Inflammatory or clearly improper closing argument (for example, overt appeals to racial prejudice, or references to inadmissible evidence).
- Violations of in limine rulings (for example, deliberately mentioning excluded insurance coverage).
- Discovery abuses that surface at trial and prejudice the other side.
- Intentional reference to inadmissible settlements or insurance in front of the jury.
Again, the misconduct must be serious enough to have likely influenced the verdict. Mild improprieties, especially where curative instructions were given, are usually treated as harmless.

On the MBE, pay attention to whether:
- The judge gave a prompt, strong curative instruction.
- The improper comment was isolated or repeated.
- The misconduct occurred at a critical moment (for example, in closing argument) or in a marginal context.
If the misconduct is pervasive or the judge refused to act, a new trial is more likely justified.
Juror misconduct or irregularities:

Examples:
- Outside influence on the jury (for example, a juror reads media coverage or receives information from a nonjuror).
- Concealed bias during voir dire (for example, a juror lies about a relationship to a party or about a strong opinion related to the case).
- Consideration of extraneous prejudicial information (for example, experiments or site visits not authorized by the court).
- Improper communications between jurors and parties, witnesses, or court staff.
When juror misconduct is proven and is not trivial, a new trial is usually appropriate. However, evidence of juror misconduct is limited by Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b), which generally bars juror testimony about internal deliberations but allows testimony about external influences and extraneous information. So a juror can testify that another juror brought in a newspaper article about the case, but not that “the foreperson bullied me into voting for liability.”

Juror misconduct issues often intersect with voir dire. If a juror truthfully discloses a potentially biasing fact (for example, prior litigation experience) and the party chooses not to strike that juror, it is much harder to get a new trial based on bias later. If a juror intentionally conceals that information, that is a much stronger basis for a new trial.

Timing matters. Information suggesting juror bias or misconduct must be raised as soon as reasonably possible. Sitting on such information until after an adverse verdict may be treated as waiver.
Newly discovered evidence:
- Evidence that existed at the time of trial but could not have been discovered earlier with due diligence.
- The evidence must be material and likely to produce a different result.
- Pure impeachment evidence (for example, something that only affects credibility, not substance) is usually not enough.
This ground overlaps with Rule 60(b)(2). If the evidence surfaces within the 28‑day Rule 59 window, a Rule 59 motion for a new trial (or to alter/amend) is the usual route. If the evidence appears after that window closes, Rule 60(b)(2) becomes the only federal procedural route for reopening the judgment based on that evidence.

Courts are strict about diligence. If the evidence was in the party’s control or easily discoverable before trial (for example, the party’s own business records or readily identifiable witnesses), it usually will not qualify as “newly discovered” even if counsel failed to find or appreciate it. On the MBE, if the fact pattern says the evidence could have been found with reasonable efforts, that usually defeats this ground.
Excessive or inadequate damages:

A new trial may be ordered where:
- An award “shocks the conscience” or is clearly unsupported by the evidence.
- The jury plainly ignored instructions (for example, awarding punitive damages where they were not sought or authorized).
- Nominal damages were awarded when substantial loss was proven, or a huge award was given where proof of harm was minimal.
This often leads to remittitur or (in state court only) sometimes additur.

Key Term: Remittitur
:
A procedure in which the judge offers the plaintiff a choice: accept a reduced damages award or undergo a new trial on damages.

Key Term: Additur
:
A procedure in which a judge offers the defendant a choice: accept an increased damages award or undergo a new trial on damages. Additur is not permitted in federal court.

Federal judges may use remittitur but not additur; increasing a jury’s award violates the Seventh Amendment reexamination clause in federal court. If a question places you in federal court and the judge “raises” a damages award without a new trial, that is improper.

Harmless errors do not justify a new trial; the error must have affected substantial rights or the outcome. The burden is on the moving party to show prejudice.

Also remember that the judge’s disagreement with the jury’s verdict on damages is not enough by itself. The award must be so high or so low that it plainly reflects passion, prejudice, or a clear lack of evidentiary support. Federal courts applying state substantive standards (for example, under Gasperini) still use Rule 59 as the procedural mechanism for dealing with excessive verdicts.

MBE Contrast: New Trial vs JMOL:

New trial (Rule 59) — judge may weigh evidence and assess witness credibility; standard is whether the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence or resulted from serious error or misconduct.

JMOL / renewed JMOL (Rule 50) — judge must view evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, without weighing credibility; standard is whether any reasonable jury could have found for the nonmovant.

For exam purposes, if the question emphasizes that “reasonable jurors could disagree” but the judge personally thinks the verdict is wrong, the correct motion is new trial, not JMOL.

Procedure and Timing

Key procedural points for Rule 59 new trial motions:

Any party may move for a new trial.
The motion must be filed no later than 28 days after entry of judgment (not after the verdict).
- “Judgment” means the separate judgment document entered on the civil docket under Rule 79(a), not merely the oral announcement of the verdict.
- On the MBE, the facts will usually state that judgment was “entered” on a particular date; count 28 days from that date.
The court itself may order a new trial on its own initiative:
- Within the same 28‑day window, or
- Later, but only in response to a timely motion (for example, a timely renewed JMOL or a timely Rule 59 motion raising some other ground).
The motion must state the specific grounds.
- Rule 7(b) requires that motions “state with particularity the grounds” and the relief sought.
- In practice, parties should raise all plausible grounds at once; raising new grounds later is generally not allowed.

Because Rule 6(a) governs how to compute time, the 28 days are counted by excluding the day judgment is entered, including weekends and holidays, and extending to the next business day if the last day falls on a weekend or legal holiday.

A motion based solely on clerical errors does not need to be a Rule 59 motion; Rule 60(a) is available at any time for purely mechanical mistakes. But if the requested relief would change the substance of the judgment (for example, altering the liability determination or re‑weighing damages), Rule 59 is the proper route within its 28‑day window.

It is also possible to combine a Rule 59 new trial motion with other posttrial motions (for example, a Rule 50(b) renewed JMOL), either in a single filing or in separate but simultaneous filings. On the MBE, when you see a losing party file “a motion for JMOL or, in the alternative, a new trial,” assume both Rule 50 and Rule 59 standards are in play.

Exam Warning

The 28‑day Rule 59 deadline is jurisdictional in the sense that the court cannot extend it. Rule 6(b) expressly forbids extensions for new trial motions. A new trial motion filed on day 29 must be denied as untimely, no matter how strong the merits.

This generates a common MBE pattern:

A party misses the 28‑day deadline and then tries to repackage the argument as a Rule 60 motion.
If the real complaint is “the verdict is wrong” or “we need a new trial,” Rule 60 is not the right tool, because Rule 60 is not a substitute for a late appeal or for an untimely Rule 59 motion.

Another point: if a party files an untimely motion and the district court nevertheless considers it on the merits, that does not make it timely or toll the appeal period. On appeal, the court of appeals will treat the motion as a nullity for timing purposes.

Scope of a New Trial

A new trial may be:

On all issues, or
Limited (for example, damages only) if:
- Liability was fairly determined,
- The issues are separable, and
- A partial new trial will not create inconsistent verdicts or violate the Seventh Amendment.

For example, a liability verdict supported by strong evidence but with clearly excessive damages may warrant a new trial limited to damages, sometimes accompanied by remittitur.

Courts are careful: if liability and damages are intertwined (for example, liability turns on the seriousness of the injury or on the extent of damages), a new trial on damages only may be improper. On the MBE, if the facts suggest that a partial new trial would force the second jury to revisit issues already decided by the first jury, assume a full new trial is required.

In bench trials, Rule 59(a)(2) allows the judge to “open the judgment” and take additional testimony, amend findings of fact and conclusions of law, and direct the entry of a new judgment, with or without a completely new evidentiary hearing.

The court’s decision to grant or deny a new trial is reviewed on appeal for abuse of discretion, not de novo. Appellate courts are very reluctant to second‑guess a trial judge’s feel for the case, especially regarding verdict weight and juror behavior.

Motions to Alter or Amend Judgment (Rule 59(e))

Rule 59 also authorizes motions to “alter or amend” a judgment.

Key Term: Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment
:
A Rule 59(e) motion that asks the court, within 28 days of judgment, to change the judgment’s substance—often to correct legal errors, account for newly discovered evidence, or reflect an intervening change in law.

A Rule 59(e) motion is generally appropriate when the movant contends that something is wrong with the judgment itself—not just with the trial proceedings. Typical grounds:

Newly discovered evidence that:
- Could not have been discovered earlier with due diligence,
- Is not merely cumulative or impeaching, and
- Would likely change the outcome.
A clear error of law or fact:
- For example, the court misapplied a statute, miscalculated damages, misidentified the prevailing party, applied the wrong burden of proof, or relied on a plainly erroneous factual assumption drawn from the record.
An intervening change in controlling law (for example, a new Supreme Court decision issued after judgment that undercuts the legal basis for the judgment).
The need to prevent manifest injustice, such as a glaring legal or factual oversight that would result in an unjust outcome if left uncorrected.

A Rule 59(e) motion is not a chance to relitigate old arguments, present evidence that could have been offered before judgment, or raise entirely new theories that were never previously asserted. Courts routinely deny “re‑argument” disguised as Rule 59(e).

Timing:

Must be filed within 28 days of entry of judgment, and this deadline cannot be extended.
A timely Rule 59(e) motion, like a new trial motion, tolls the time to appeal; the 30‑day appeal period runs from the order disposing of the Rule 59 motion (Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)).

Substance over label: if a party files a motion within 28 days that in substance attacks the correctness of the judgment, federal courts often treat it as a Rule 59(e) motion even if the party labels it as a Rule 60 motion. That reclassification matters because it affects both the standard and the time to appeal.

Strategically, lawyers often file both a Rule 59(a) new trial motion and a Rule 59(e) motion in the alternative, to ensure all possible arguments for revisiting the judgment are preserved and to clearly toll the appeal deadline.

Choosing Between Rule 59 and Rule 60 on the MBE

Exam questions often hinge on whether a party chose the correct vehicle and met the correct deadline:

If the motion attacks errors at trial or the merits of the verdict/judgment and is filed within 28 days, think Rule 59 (new trial or alter/amend), not Rule 60.
If the motion is based on events or information arising after judgment (for example, a later change in circumstances, satisfaction of an injunction) or on the special grounds enumerated in Rule 60(b), think Rule 60.
If the motion is filed after 28 days but within 1 year and alleges fraud, mistake, or newly discovered evidence, it can only proceed (if at all) under Rule 60(b)(1)–(3), not under Rule 59.

A late Rule 59(e) motion cannot be “rescued” by calling it Rule 60(b) if the real complaint is that the court misapplied the law. Ordinary legal error belongs in a timely Rule 59(e) motion or on direct appeal, not Rule 60.

JMOL and Renewed JMOL (Rule 50) and Their Interaction with New Trial Motions

Rule 50 motions are also central to posttrial practice.

A party may move for JMOL under Rule 50(a) any time after the opposing party has been “fully heard” on an issue at trial and before the case is submitted to the jury.
After the jury returns a verdict, a party who made a Rule 50(a) motion may file a renewed JMOL under Rule 50(b).

A renewed JMOL:

Must be filed within 28 days after entry of judgment.
May be granted only on grounds raised in the earlier JMOL. You cannot raise a new “sufficiency of the evidence” theory for the first time in a Rule 50(b) motion.
Uses the sufficiency‑of‑the‑evidence standard: the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and ask whether a reasonable jury could have reached this verdict. The judge does not weigh credibility or choose between competing inferences.

By contrast, in a new trial motion, the judge may weigh evidence and credibility and grant a new trial if the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence, even if it could be supported under the JMOL standard.

Because of this, parties often file alternative motions: a renewed JMOL and, in the alternative, a motion for a new trial. If the court grants the renewed JMOL, it should also rule conditionally on the new trial motion in case the JMOL is reversed on appeal. Rule 50(c) directs courts to do this, so that if the appellate court reinstates the verdict it can decide whether to reinstate the verdict or order a new trial without a remand.

From an appellate standpoint:

Denial or grant of renewed JMOL is reviewed de novo (same as for summary judgment).
Rulings on new trial motions are reviewed for abuse of discretion.

These different standards of review are frequently tested: know that sufficiency questions (JMOL/summary judgment) are de novo; discretionary trial‑management decisions (new trial, Rule 60 relief, evidentiary rulings) are abuse of discretion.

Preservation trap:

If a party fails to move for renewed JMOL and fails to move for a new trial on sufficiency‑of‑the‑evidence grounds, that party is generally precluded from challenging evidentiary sufficiency on appeal. The court of appeals will treat the sufficiency issue as waived.
A pre‑verdict Rule 50(a) motion alone is not enough; you must renew post‑verdict under 50(b) (or at least move for a new trial raising the sufficiency issue) to preserve it.

In bench trials, the analogous mechanism is a motion for judgment on partial findings under Rule 52(c), not JMOL, because the judge is the factfinder and may weigh evidence. Posttrial, the proper motion is a Rule 52(b) motion to amend findings and judgment (discussed later).

Key Term: Excusable Neglect
:
A Rule 60(b)(1) ground referring to a reasonable failure to act (for example, missing a deadline or failing to respond) that a prudent person might have made under the circumstances, often due to mistake or unforeseen events.

Motion for Relief from Judgment (Rule 60)

Rule 60 provides another avenue to attack a final judgment or order. It is not a substitute for appeal or a late Rule 59 motion; it is reserved for specific situations in which equity demands reopening a judgment.

Rule 60 has two main components: Rule 60(a) and Rule 60(b).

Key Term: Clerical Error
:
A mechanical or transcription mistake in a judgment or order (for example, mis‑typed amount, misnamed party), correctable at any time under Rule 60(a).

Rule 60(a): Clerical Mistakes

Rule 60(a) allows the court to correct clerical mistakes or errors arising from oversight or omission.

Examples:
- The judgment says “ $50,000” but the verdict and record clearly show the jury awarded$ 500,000.
- A party’s name is misspelled or a docket number is wrong.
- The judgment omits a claim that was obviously resolved at trial.

Key points:

The court may correct such errors on its own initiative or on a party’s motion.
Corrections may be made at any time, even years later.
If an appeal is pending, the district court may correct the error but often needs leave from the appellate court.
The correction “relates back” to the original judgment date; it does not reopen the case for new litigation or restart the appeal clock.

Rule 60(a) is not a license to change the court’s mind or fix substantive mistakes; it is limited to mechanical errors in recording what was actually decided.

Rule 60(b): Substantive Relief from Judgment

Rule 60(b) lists six grounds for relief from a final judgment, order, or proceeding:

Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.
Newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59.
Fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party.
The judgment is void.
The judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; a prior judgment on which it is based has been reversed or vacated; or applying the judgment prospectively is no longer equitable.
Any other reason that justifies relief.

Key Term: Newly Discovered Evidence
:
Evidence that existed at the time of trial but could not have been found with reasonable diligence in time to support a new trial motion, and that would probably change the result if the judgment were reopened.

Key Term: Fraud on the Court
:
Serious fraud that corrupts the judicial process itself (for example, bribing a judge or tampering with the jury), as opposed to ordinary fraud between parties.

Key Term: Void Judgment
:
A judgment entered by a court lacking subject‑matter or personal jurisdiction, or rendered in violation of due process (for example, no notice or opportunity to be heard), and therefore treated as a legal nullity.

Key timing rules:

A Rule 60(b) motion must be made within a reasonable time.
For grounds (1), (2), and (3)—mistake, newly discovered evidence, and fraud—the motion must be made no later than 1 year after the judgment.
The one‑year limit does not apply to grounds (4), (5), and (6), but those still require filing within a reasonable time.

Ground (1): Mistake, Inadvertence, Surprise, or Excusable Neglect

This is commonly used when a party or attorney has:

Mis‑calendared a deadline.
Failed to respond because of unforeseen events (for example, serious illness, natural disasters).
Misunderstood a fact or procedural requirement in a way that led to a default or missed deadline.

Courts consider all circumstances, including:

Prejudice to the opposing party.
The length of the delay.
The reason for the delay and whether it was within the movant’s control.
Whether the movant acted in good faith.
Whether the movant has a potentially meritorious claim or defense.

Ordinary legal error by the judge (for example, misinterpreting a statute) is not usually a “mistake” for Rule 60(b)(1) purposes; such errors should be corrected by timely Rule 59 motions or direct appeal. Using Rule 60(b)(1) to argue “the judge misapplied the law” is almost always improper.

Attorney negligence is ordinarily imputed to the client; garden‑variety negligence by counsel is not usually excusable neglect. But gross negligence or abandonment by counsel can sometimes qualify, especially when the client acted diligently upon learning of the problem.

On the MBE, when you see a default judgment entered after a lawyer misses a deadline by a few days due to a clearly described calendaring error, a prompt Rule 60(b)(1) motion is often the correct answer.

Ground (2): Newly Discovered Evidence

Relief is appropriate if the movant shows:

The evidence existed at the time of trial.
It could not have been discovered earlier with reasonable diligence.
It is not merely cumulative or for impeachment.
It would probably produce a different result in a new trial.

This ground assumes the Rule 59 window has closed. If the evidence surfaces within 28 days, the proper route is usually a Rule 59 motion. Remember the one‑year absolute cap from entry of judgment for this ground.

Contrast: “Newly available” evidence—such as a witness who decides after trial to tell the truth—is generally not enough if the relevant information was always available to the moving party through reasonable investigation.

Ground (3): Fraud, Misrepresentation, or Misconduct

Covers serious wrongdoing by the opposing party that prevented the movant from fully and fairly presenting their case. Examples:

Concealing critical documents during discovery.
Suborning perjury.
Intentionally destroying favorable evidence.
Bribing a witness.

Relief requires a showing—often by clear and convincing evidence—that the misconduct substantially interfered with the movant’s case.

Ordinary fraud between parties is subject to the 1‑year limit. Fraud on the court (for example, bribing the judge, pervasive perjury involving officers of the court) may be addressed under Rule 60(d) and is not limited by the one‑year period. Fraud on the court is rare and requires corruption of the judicial machinery itself, not just sharp tactics between litigants.

Ground (4): Void Judgment

Relief under Rule 60(b)(4) is different in kind. A judgment is “void” if:

The court lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction in a fundamental way.
The court lacked personal jurisdiction due to defective service or insufficient contacts with the forum and no valid waiver.
Fundamental due process (notice and opportunity to be heard) was denied.

If a judgment is truly void, the court must set it aside. There is no balancing of equities, and no need to show a meritorious defense.

Timing:

There is no absolute time limit, but the motion must still be brought within a “reasonable time” after the party learns of the judgment.
The 1‑year cap does not apply to void judgments; a void judgment can be attacked even years later, provided the movant acts promptly once aware.

Important: A judgment is not void merely because the court made a legal error. Even serious errors in applying law do not make a judgment void for Rule 60(b)(4) purposes. That distinction is heavily tested.

Ground (5): Satisfaction or Prospective Inequity

Applies when:

The judgment has been satisfied or released (for example, the defendant paid the judgment).
A prior judgment on which the current judgment rests has been reversed or otherwise vacated.
A prospective injunction or similar relief has become unjust due to changed circumstances (for example, institutional reform orders rendered obsolete by changed conditions or law).

This ground is most often used to modify or terminate ongoing injunctive or declaratory relief that operates in the future. It does not usually allow relitigation of a money judgment that compensates for past harm, except to acknowledge satisfaction or release.

Courts use a pragmatic, equitable analysis, often citing the Supreme Court’s Rufo framework for institutional decrees.

Ground (6): “Any Other Reason” (Catch‑All)

This is a narrow residual clause. It is available only when:

No other 60(b) provision applies, and
Extraordinary circumstances justify relief.

Examples might include:

A party being prevented from taking an appeal due to extreme events beyond their control and no other remedy being available.
A truly fundamental change in the governing law combined with unusual reliance on the old rule, in very limited contexts.

Courts construe Rule 60(b)(6) very strictly. Ordinary negligence, new legal theories, dissatisfaction with the outcome, or simple failure to appeal are not enough. Also, a party cannot use (6) if the situation really falls under (1)–(5); the grounds are mutually exclusive.

Exam Warning – Rule 60

Important points to remember for questions involving Rule 60:

A party who learns of fraud 14 months after judgment cannot use Rule 60(b)(3); the one‑year cap applies even if diligence is shown. The proper route would be an independent action in equity for fraud on the court, which is seldom tested and requires extremely serious wrongdoing.
Rule 60 is not designed to correct ordinary legal errors or reargue the merits. Using Rule 60 to re‑litigate issues that could have been raised on appeal or under Rule 59 will fail.
Relief under Rule 60(b) is reviewed on appeal for abuse of discretion. Denial of Rule 60 relief rarely produces a reversal; the standard is very deferential.
Filing a Rule 60(b) motion does not itself extend the time to appeal unless it is filed within 28 days and is, in substance, a Rule 59 motion.

A good mental checklist on the MBE:

What is the ground (1–6)?
When was the judgment entered?
When was the motion filed?
Is there an attempt to use Rule 60 as a substitute for a missed appeal or an untimely Rule 59 motion?

Effect on Time to Appeal

The timing and type of posttrial motion affect when the 30‑day appeal period begins (60 days if the United States is a party).

Certain timely postjudgment motions stop the clock. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4), if any of the following motions is timely filed, the time to appeal runs from the entry of the order disposing of the last such motion:

Rule 50(b) renewed JMOL.
Rule 52(b) motion to amend or make additional findings (bench trials).
Rule 59(a) motion for a new trial.
Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment.
A Rule 60 motion filed within 28 days of judgment that seeks relief of the kind available under Rule 59 (in practice, courts often treat such motions as Rule 59(e) motions).

Key exam points:

A timely Rule 59 motion (new trial or alter/amend) always tolls the appeal time.
A Rule 50(b) renewed JMOL or Rule 52(b) motion, if timely, also tolls the appeal time.
A Rule 60(b) motion filed more than 28 days after judgment does not toll the time to appeal.
A party cannot resurrect an expired appeal deadline by filing a Rule 60 motion. At most, the party can appeal from the denial of the Rule 60 motion itself, not from the original judgment.

Separate from these motions, Rule 4(a)(5) allows a limited extension of the time to file a notice of appeal for excusable neglect or good cause, but that is a distinct mechanism and not itself a Rule 60 motion.

An important detail: if a party files a notice of appeal and then files a timely Rule 59 motion, the notice of appeal is suspended and becomes effective when the trial court disposes of the Rule 59 motion. This prevents premature notices of appeal from being wasted.

Bench Trials and Rule 52(b) Motions

In a nonjury (bench) trial, the court must issue findings of fact and conclusions of law. After judgment:

A party may move under Rule 52(b) to amend the findings, make additional findings, and amend the judgment accordingly.
Such a motion must be filed within 28 days after entry of judgment, and the deadline cannot be extended.
A timely Rule 52(b) motion also tolls the time to appeal.

Rule 52(b) is the bench‑trial analog to a motion for amended judgment under Rule 59(e). It is used when the complaining party argues that the judge’s findings of fact are incomplete, clearly erroneous, or inconsistent with the legal conclusions.

On appeal:

Factual findings in a bench trial are reviewed for clear error.
Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo.
Mixed questions of law and fact are often treated de novo, but the trial‑level factual findings still get clear‑error deference.

Failure to move under Rule 52(b) usually does not waive appellate review of legal issues but can limit arguments about factual detail or completeness. Where a party complains that the findings are insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review, a Rule 52(b) motion is the proper vehicle.

Strategic Considerations and MBE Pitfalls

Because posttrial motions are tightly interwoven with preservation and appeal, many MBE questions are really testing strategy. Some recurring patterns:

JMOL vs summary judgment:

Both ask whether any reasonable jury could find for the nonmovant, and both are reviewed de novo. But:
- Summary judgment (Rule 56) is a pretrial motion, based on depositions, affidavits, documents, and other discovery.
- JMOL (Rule 50) is a trial motion, based on evidence actually introduced at trial.
50(a) vs 50(b) vs 59:
- A Rule 50(a) JMOL motion must be made before the case goes to the jury, after the nonmoving party has been “fully heard.”
- A Rule 50(b) renewed JMOL can be made only by a party who previously made a 50(a) motion, and only within 28 days after entry of judgment.
- A Rule 59 motion for new trial can be made by any party, regardless of whether that party moved for JMOL.
59 vs 60:

A good way to keep them straight:
- Rule 59 is about trial‑level errors and the correctness of the verdict/judgment. It has a strict 28‑day window and always tolls the appeal period.
- Rule 60 is about special post‑judgment grounds (mistake, new evidence, fraud, voidness, satisfaction, extraordinary circumstances). It has longer time limits for some grounds but is harder to win and does not usually toll appeal time.
If the facts describe an error that occurred before judgment and the losing party knows of it at or shortly after judgment, the expected motion on the MBE is Rule 59. If the problem arises or is discovered long after judgment (or necessarily involves events after judgment, like satisfaction of an injunction), the expected motion is Rule 60.
Deadlines and Rule 6(b):

The exam frequently tests that the court cannot extend certain deadlines:
- Renewed JMOL (Rule 50(b)).
- Motion to amend findings (Rule 52(b)).
- New trial or motion to alter or amend judgment (Rule 59).
- Rule 60(b)(1)–(3) one‑year outer limit.
If a judge purports to extend any of these deadlines on the merits (for example, “I’ll allow you to file your new trial motion on day 40”), that is error. The motion is still untimely, and the court has no power to grant it.
Additur vs remittitur in federal vs state court:
- Remittitur (reducing an excessive verdict with the plaintiff’s consent) is allowed in federal court.
- Additur (increasing an inadequate verdict with the defendant’s consent) is not allowed in federal court because of the Seventh Amendment.
Be careful when the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction. The court applies state substantive standards (for example, what counts as “excessive” under state law) but federal procedural limits—so even if the state allows additur, the federal judge cannot use it.
Finality and posttrial motions:

Not every order is a “final judgment.” For example, a partial summary judgment resolving fewer than all claims, without a Rule 54(b) determination, is not final and cannot be attacked by Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). Only final judgments (or orders that are treated as final for certain purposes) are subject to these postjudgment mechanisms.

MBE questions sometimes hide a trap: the party files a “Rule 60(b) motion” to challenge an interlocutory order; strictly speaking, the rule applies only to “final judgments, orders, or proceedings.” The court can always revise interlocutory orders under Rule 54(b) without needing Rule 60.
Standards of review:

Know this mental table:
- Renewed JMOL, summary judgment, and purely legal rulings — de novo.
- New trial, Rule 59(e), Rule 60(b), evidentiary rulings, and discovery sanctions — abuse of discretion.
- Bench‑trial factual findings — clear error.
MBE questions often ask which motion gives the appellate court the most freedom to disagree with the trial court; de novo review gives the appellate court that freedom.
Plain error:

Occasionally, the exam may mention “plain error” review. This is a safety valve allowing an appellate court to correct a particularly egregious error that was not preserved below. It is rarely applicable in civil cases and sets a very high bar. You should not rely on plain error to save a failure to object or a failure to make appropriate posttrial motions.

With these strategic points in mind, the rest of this article’s examples illustrate how the rules are applied in context.

Worked Example 1.1

A plaintiff loses at trial. Two months later she discovers that the defendant withheld key documents that would likely have changed the outcome. She files a motion for relief from judgment based on fraud by the opposing party.

Answer:
:
The motion is timely and properly framed if filed within 1 year of the judgment, because fraud by the opposing party is a ground for relief under Rule 60(b)(3). She must show that the fraud prevented her from fully and fairly presenting her case, typically by clear and convincing evidence. A new trial motion under Rule 59 would be untimely because more than 28 days have passed.

If the documents could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence before or during trial, the same facts might also support a Rule 60(b)(2) “newly discovered evidence” argument. The one‑year outer limit applies to both (2) and (3), so the precise subpart matters less than the timing here. What would not work is attempting to use Rule 60 to simply say “the verdict is against the weight of the evidence”; that is a Rule 59 ground.

On appeal, denial of such a Rule 60(b)(3) motion would be reviewed for abuse of discretion, and the appellate court would not revisit the entire case de novo, but would focus narrowly on whether the district court reasonably evaluated the alleged fraud and its impact.

Worked Example 1.2

A defendant believes the jury’s verdict is against the weight of the evidence. He files a motion for a new trial 35 days after entry of judgment.

Answer:
:
The motion is untimely. A Rule 59 motion for a new trial must be filed within 28 days after entry of judgment, and this deadline cannot be extended. The court must deny the motion as late, regardless of its substantive merit.

The defendant cannot evade this problem by re‑labeling the motion as a Rule 60(b) motion; there is no Rule 60 ground for “verdict against the weight of the evidence.” The appropriate time to challenge the weight of the evidence is within the Rule 59 window. After that window closes, the defendant’s only recourse is a direct appeal (challenging legal errors) or, where appropriate, a Rule 60 motion based on one of the enumerated grounds (for example, newly discovered evidence or fraud), subject to its own time limits.

If the defendant also failed to move for JMOL under Rule 50(a) and 50(b), he will be unable to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal as well. The appellate court will treat both the weight and sufficiency criticisms as waived, leaving only preserved legal issues open for review.

Worked Example 1.3

At the close of the plaintiff’s case, the defendant moves for JMOL. The court denies the motion, the defendant presents evidence, and the jury returns a verdict for the plaintiff. Within 28 days after judgment, the defendant moves for renewed JMOL and, alternatively, for a new trial, arguing that the evidence is insufficient and that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.

Answer:
:
The renewed JMOL is procedurally proper because the defendant moved for JMOL before the case went to the jury, and it is timely. The court must ask whether any reasonable jury could have found for the plaintiff when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. If not, judgment as a matter of law must be entered for the defendant.

The new trial motion allows the judge to weigh evidence and credibility and decide whether the verdict is seriously against the weight of the evidence. Even if a reasonable jury could have found for the plaintiff (defeating JMOL), the judge may conclude that justice requires a new trial because the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence.

If the court grants renewed JMOL, Rule 50(c) requires the judge to also state, in the alternative, whether a new trial would be granted if the JMOL is later vacated or reversed on appeal. This conditional ruling allows the court of appeals, if it reverses the JMOL, to decide whether to reinstate the verdict or remand for a new trial without having to send the case back for the trial court to address the new‑trial motion for the first time.

Denial or grant of renewed JMOL is reviewed de novo; ruling on the new trial motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion. A party who fails to file the 50(b) motion will be unable to obtain JMOL on appeal, even if the record contains no evidence supporting the verdict.

Worked Example 1.4

In a federal diversity case, the jury awards the plaintiff $10 million in compensatory damages. The judge believes the evidence could support, at most,$ 2 million. The judge orders that unless the plaintiff accepts a reduction to $2 million, a new trial on damages will be granted. In a different federal case, the judge believes the jury’s$ 100,000 award is too low and orders the defendant to accept an increase to $300,000 or face a new trial on damages.

Answer:
:
The first order (reducing the award) is a valid remittitur; the judge is offering the plaintiff the choice between a reduced award and a new trial on damages. The judge may not unilaterally reduce the verdict; the plaintiff must consent or face a new trial.

The second order is an impermissible additur in federal court—Rule 59 does not permit a judge to increase a jury’s award as a condition of avoiding a new trial because it violates the Seventh Amendment’s guarantee that the jury, not the judge, determines the amount of damages.

On the MBE, if the facts put you in state court, you must know that some states allow additur as a matter of state law, but this is not allowed in federal courts sitting in diversity. The federal court must either grant a new trial or leave the verdict as is; it cannot threaten additur. For questions that mix state and federal concepts, always ask where the case is pending and apply federal procedural limits in federal court even in diversity cases.

Worked Example 1.5

A plaintiff sues a defendant in federal court. The plaintiff obtains a default judgment after serving process by certified mail to an old address. The defendant had never lived in the forum state, never been served personally, and had no contacts with the state. Two years later, the defendant learns of the judgment when he is denied a mortgage and promptly moves in the rendering court for relief from judgment.

Answer:
:
The motion should be granted under Rule 60(b)(4) because the judgment is void: the court never had personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Due process requires valid service of process and minimum contacts with the forum; both are absent here.

The one‑year limit does not apply to void judgments, and bringing the motion promptly after learning of the judgment satisfies the “reasonable time” requirement. Once the court concludes that the judgment is void, it has no discretion to leave the judgment in place—the judgment must be set aside.

The defendant may then either defend the case on the merits (if the plaintiff refiles in a forum with jurisdiction) or simply enjoy the absence of any valid judgment if the plaintiff is now time‑barred. On the MBE, when you see a truly jurisdictionless judgment (for example, out‑of‑state defendant with no contacts and defective service), Rule 60(b)(4) is usually the correct ground.

Worked Example 1.6

At trial, the defendant moves for JMOL at the close of the plaintiff’s case, arguing insufficient evidence of causation. The motion is denied. The defendant does not renew the motion at the close of all the evidence and does not file any posttrial motions. The jury returns a verdict for the plaintiff. On appeal, the defendant argues the evidence was insufficient to prove causation.

Answer:
:
The sufficiency argument is not preserved. Because the defendant did not file a renewed JMOL after the verdict or a new trial motion on sufficiency grounds, he cannot challenge the evidentiary sufficiency on appeal. A Rule 50(a) motion alone is not enough; a postverdict motion is required to preserve sufficiency‑of‑the‑evidence issues.

The appellate court may still review sufficiency for plain error in rare cases, but that is a very high standard and is extremely unlikely on the MBE. The tested rule is: to preserve a sufficiency challenge, you must make a pre‑verdict JMOL and renew with a post‑verdict JMOL (or at least raise the issue in a Rule 59 motion).

If the defendant had made a timely Rule 59 motion arguing that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, he could still obtain a new trial from the trial court, even though the appellate sufficiency challenge would remain waived. The exam may test your ability to distinguish between preserving sufficiency (a Rule 50(b) function) and preserving weight‑of‑the‑evidence issues (a Rule 59 function).

Worked Example 1.7

A court enters judgment for the defendant on May 1. On May 20, the plaintiff files a motion arguing that the judge misapplied a statute and asking the court to correct its legal error. The court treats the motion as arising under Rule 60(b)(1) and denies it, stating that legal error must be addressed by appeal. The plaintiff files a notice of appeal on June 25.

Answer:
:
Substantively, the motion should be treated as a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment because it seeks correction of alleged legal error and was filed within 28 days. As a timely Rule 59(e) motion, it tolled the time to appeal, so the 30‑day appeal period runs from the order denying the motion (entered on the date of denial).

Even if the trial court mislabeled the motion as Rule 60(b), the appellate court will look to the substance and treat the motion as a Rule 59(e) motion. The June 25 notice of appeal is therefore timely. This illustrates that mislabeling does not defeat tolling when the motion, in substance, falls under Rule 59 and is filed within the 28‑day window.

On the merits, however, the standard of review for the legal issue will still be de novo because the plaintiff is challenging a pure question of law (the meaning of the statute), even though the vehicle for revisiting it at the trial‑court level was Rule 59(e).

Worked Example 1.8

A plaintiff wins a permanent injunction requiring a city to operate a homeless shelter. Five years later, the city moves under Rule 60(b)(5) to modify the injunction, arguing that (1) the shelter has been replaced by a comprehensive statewide program and (2) the legal standards governing such programs have changed.

Answer:
:
Relief is potentially available under Rule 60(b)(5), which permits modification of a judgment when applying it prospectively is no longer equitable. The injunction is prospective relief, and changed factual and legal circumstances may mean the injunction now imposes inequitable obligations.

The court will consider whether the changed circumstances are significant and whether continued enforcement would be unfair. There is no fixed 1‑year cap on such motions, but they must be made within a reasonable time after the change in conditions. Courts often grant substantial deference to governmental entities seeking to modify institutional reform injunctions when they can show lasting and significant change.

The original judgment is not reopened for relitigation of past liability; only the scope of ongoing obligations is adjusted. On the MBE, when you see a long‑running injunction and major changed circumstances, Rule 60(b)(5) is the likely vehicle.

Worked Example 1.9

A defendant is served but fails to answer, and a default judgment is entered. Three weeks later, the defendant moves under Rule 60(b)(1) to set aside the judgment, explaining that his lawyer mis‑calendared the answer date. The plaintiff shows no prejudice other than the delay.

Answer:
:
The motion is timely and fits within Rule 60(b)(1) (“excusable neglect”). Courts often treat a modest calendaring error, promptly corrected, as excusable, especially where the defendant has a potentially meritorious defense and the plaintiff is not seriously prejudiced beyond ordinary delay.

The court has discretion to set aside the default judgment and allow the case to proceed on the merits. In deciding, the court considers three main factors: whether the defendant has a meritorious defense, whether the plaintiff will be prejudiced, and whether the default was culpable or willful. On the MBE, assume that short delays with innocent explanations and minimal prejudice usually warrant relief.

Note that the defendant could also have moved under Rule 55(c) to set aside the entry of default itself; the standard there (“good cause”) is somewhat more forgiving than for setting aside a default judgment under Rule 60(b). The exam may test your ability to distinguish between setting aside the entry of default (Rule 55) and setting aside the default judgment (Rule 60).

Worked Example 1.10

The court enters judgment on January 1. On January 20, the defendant files a timely Rule 59 motion for a new trial. The court denies the motion on March 1. The defendant files a notice of appeal on March 25, challenging both the judgment and the denial of the new trial motion.

Answer:
:
The notice of appeal is timely. The timely Rule 59 motion tolled the 30‑day time to appeal. The new 30‑day period began on March 1, when the court denied the motion, and runs until March 31. Filing the notice of appeal on March 25 is within that period.

The appeal can challenge both the original judgment and the denial of the new trial motion. When a Rule 59 motion tolls the appeal deadline, a single notice of appeal filed after the motion is resolved brings up for review both the judgment and the order disposing of the motion.

If the defendant had filed the Rule 59 motion late (for example, on February 5), it would not have tolled the appeal deadline, and the March 25 notice would have been untimely. A very common MBE trap is a party who files a late posttrial motion and relies on it to toll the appeal period; that reliance is misplaced.

Procedures and Time Limits – Summary

Key timing rules and procedural requirements frequently tested on the MBE:

New trial motions (Rule 59):
- File within 28 days after entry of judgment.
- Grounds: verdict against the weight of the evidence, prejudicial error, misconduct, newly discovered evidence, excessive or inadequate damages, and similar reasons previously recognized at common law.
- Court may not extend this deadline (Rule 6(b)).
- The judge may order a new trial on their own initiative within the same period.
- Reviewed on appeal for abuse of discretion.
Motion to alter or amend judgment (Rule 59(e)):
- Same 28‑day deadline, non‑extendable.
- Used to correct clear legal/factual errors, account for new evidence or changes in controlling law, or prevent manifest injustice.
- Not a vehicle to raise arguments or evidence that could have been presented before judgment.
- Tolls the appeal time if timely.
Renewed JMOL (Rule 50(b)):
- Requires a prior Rule 50(a) JMOL motion before submission to the jury.
- Must be filed within 28 days after entry of judgment; no extension allowed.
- Uses the sufficiency‑of‑the‑evidence standard; court views evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant.
- Necessary (along with, or instead of, a new trial motion) to preserve sufficiency challenges for appeal.
Bench‑trial motions (Rule 52(b)):
- Motion to amend or make additional findings and amend judgment.
- Must be filed within 28 days after entry of judgment.
- Tolls the appeal time if timely.
- Typically used to challenge factual findings as incomplete or clearly erroneous, or to conform findings to undisputed evidence.
Rule 60(b) relief from judgment:
- Grounds (1)–(3) — mistake/excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud/misconduct:
  - Must be filed within a reasonable time and no later than 1 year after judgment or order.
- Grounds (4)–(6) — void judgment; satisfaction or prospective inequity; catch‑all:
  - Must be filed within a reasonable time, but no fixed outer limit.
  - Void judgments can be attacked even long after 1 year, if the movant acts promptly once aware.
- Generally do not toll the time to appeal if filed more than 28 days after judgment.
- Not a substitute for a timely Rule 59 motion or appeal; cannot be used merely to correct legal error.
No extensions (Rule 6(b)):
- The court cannot extend the time for:
  - Rule 50(b) renewed JMOL motions.
  - Rule 52(b) motions to amend findings.
  - Rule 59 motions (new trial; alter or amend judgment).
  - Rule 60(b)(1)–(3) motions (to the extent of the 1‑year outer limit).
Appeal deadlines (FRAP 4):
- Generally, a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of judgment (60 days if the United States is a party).
- Timely Rule 50(b), 52(b), and 59 motions (and functionally similar Rule 60 motions filed within 28 days) toll this deadline; the clock restarts upon entry of the order disposing of the last such motion.
- Untimely posttrial motions do not extend the appeal deadline.
- A motion under Rule 60(b) filed more than 28 days after judgment does not toll time to appeal; a party wishing to appeal both the judgment and the denial of Rule 60 relief must file separate, timely notices (or ensure that the original appeal deadline has not expired).

Missing a posttrial motion deadline can be devastating: it may bar both the motion and, in some instances (especially sufficiency challenges), the ability to raise certain issues on appeal.

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

Posttrial motions include Rule 59 motions (new trial and to alter or amend judgment), Rule 50(b) renewed JMOL, Rule 52(b) motions in bench trials, and Rule 60 motions for relief from judgment.
A new trial may be granted for prejudicial error, misconduct, newly discovered evidence, a verdict against the weight of the evidence, or clearly excessive or inadequate damages.
A motion for a new trial or a motion to alter or amend the judgment must be filed within 28 days after entry of judgment, and this deadline cannot be extended.
Renewed JMOL under Rule 50(b) requires a prior Rule 50(a) motion and must be filed within 28 days after judgment; it is distinct from a new trial motion in both standard and effect.
Remittitur is permissible in federal court; additur is not.
Relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) is available for mistake, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud or misconduct, void judgments, satisfaction or release of judgment, and other extraordinary reasons.
Rule 60(b)(1)–(3) motions have a one‑year limit from judgment; other Rule 60(b) grounds must be raised within a reasonable time without a fixed outer limit.
Rule 60 is not a substitute for a timely Rule 59 motion or appeal and cannot be used merely to correct ordinary legal error.
Timely Rule 50(b), 52(b), and 59 motions toll the time to appeal; Rule 60 motions filed after 28 days generally do not.
Failing to move for renewed JMOL or for a new trial on sufficiency grounds can bar later sufficiency‑of‑the‑evidence challenges on appeal.
Void judgments (for lack of jurisdiction or due process) can be attacked under Rule 60(b)(4) without being subject to the one‑year limit.
The standard of review differs: JMOL and renewed JMOL decisions are reviewed de novo; Rule 59 and Rule 60 decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Key Terms and Concepts

Motion for a New Trial
Relief from Judgment
Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL)
Renewed Judgment as a Matter of Law
Remittitur
Additur
Excusable Neglect
Newly Discovered Evidence
Fraud on the Court
Void Judgment
Clerical Error
Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment

Motions - Posttrial motions, including motions for relief fr...