Jasaan Allah Qiydaar v. People Encouraging People, Inc.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-1734
JASAAN ALLAH QIYDAAR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PEOPLE ENCOURAGING PEOPLE, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Ellen Lipton Hollander, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cv-01622-ELH)
Submitted: June 30, 2022 Decided: July 27, 2022
Before NIEMEYER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jasaan Allah Qiydaar, Appellant Pro Se. Rafiq R. Gharbi, Ioana Kastellorizios,
WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jasaan Allah Qiydaar appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for
judgment notwithstanding the verdict, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b), and his motion for
a new trial, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a). We affirm.
First, when his informal brief is liberally construed, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.
89, 94 (2007), Qiydaar argues that the district court erred by denying his Rule 50(b) motion
as untimely filed. “To challenge the sufficiency of the evidence in a civil jury trial on
appeal, a party must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50[, which] sets out two
different stages for such a challenge.” Belk, Inc. v. Meyer Corp., U.S., 679 F.3d 146, 154
(4th Cir. 2012). First, under Rule 50(a), the party challenges “the sufficiency of the
evidence before a case is submitted to the jury.” Id. Second, Rule 50(b) “sets forth the
requirements for challenging the sufficiency of the evidence after the jury verdict and entry
of judgment.” Id. at 155. A party is “not allowed” to seek relief under Rule 50(b) “unless
the movant sought relief on similar grounds under Rule 50(a) before the case was submitted
to the jury.” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5 (2008) (emphasis added).
Qiydaar did not move for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a) “before the case
[was] submitted to the jury.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(2). Thus, he was “not allowed” to seek
relief under Rule 50(b) after the jury had rendered its verdict, even if he did so before the
entry of the judgment. Exxon Shipping Co., 554 U.S. at 485 n.5. Accordingly, the district
court did not err by denying Qiydaar’s Rule 50(b) motion.
As to Qiydaar’s Rule 59(a) motion, we review for abuse of discretion the denial of
a motion for a new trial. Minter v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 762 F.3d 339, 346 (4th Cir.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
2014). “A district court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily or irrationally, fails to
consider judicially recognized factors constraining its exercise of discretion, relies on
erroneous factual or legal premises, or commits an error of law.” United States v. Dillard,
891 F.3d 151, 158 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).
“A district court may grant a new trial only if the verdict: (1) is against the clear
weight of the evidence; (2) is based upon false evidence; or (3) will result in a miscarriage
of justice.” EEOC v. Consol Energy, Inc., 860 F.3d 131, 145 (4th Cir. 2017). “The crucial
inquiry on review is whether an error occurred in the conduct of the trial that was so
grievous as to have rendered the trial unfair.” Gentry v. E. W. Partners Club Mgmt. Co.,
816 F.3d 228, 241 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). After reviewing
the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying
Qiydaar’s motion.
We therefore affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --