No. 21-577
Fredric N. Eshelman v. Puma Biotechnology, Inc.
Response Waived
Tags: appellate-review civil-procedure damages damages-challenge defamation federal-rules-of-civil-procedure judgment-as-matter-of-law rule-50 sufficiency-of-evidence unitherm unitherm-precedent
Key Terms:
Securities JusticiabilityDoctri
Securities JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2021-12-10
Question Presented (from Petition)
Under Unitherm and the Federal Rules, can a defendant who did not file a Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law in the district court nonetheless raise a sufficiency of the evidence challenge to damages on appeal?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a defendant who did not file a Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law in the district court can nonetheless raise a sufficiency of the evidence challenge to damages on appeal
Docket Entries
2021-12-13
Petition DENIED.
2021-11-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/10/2021.
2021-11-18
Waiver of right of respondent Puma Biotechnology, Inc. to respond filed.
2021-10-18
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 19, 2021)
2021-08-13
Application (21A14) denied by The Chief Justice. The order heretofore issued by The Chief Justice on August 4, 2021, is vacated. The application for a stay of mandate is, in all respects, denied.
2021-08-12
Reply of applicant Fredric N. Eshelman filed.
2021-08-11
Response to application from respondent Puma Biotechnology, Inc. filed.
2021-08-04
Letter of applicant Fredric N. Eshelman filed.
2021-08-04
UPON CONSIDERATION of the application of counsel for the applicant,
IT IS ORDERED that the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, case Nos. 20-1329 and 20-1376, is hereby stayed pending receipt of a response, due on or before Wednesday, August 11, 2021, by 3:00 p.m. ET, and further order of the undersigned or of the Court.
2021-08-02
Application (21A14) for a stay of mandate, submitted to The Chief Justice.
Attorneys
Fredric N. Eshelman
Elizabeth Marie Locke — Clare Locke LLP, Petitioner
Puma Biotechnology, Inc.
Roman Martinez V — Latham & Watkins, LLP, Respondent