A federal jury heard a negligence case in which a car driver sued a truck driver for causing their collision. During the trial, the parties raised no objections to the trial process. At the close of the evidence, the truck driver moved for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) under Rule 50(a). The motion was denied. The jury then returned a verdict finding the truck driver negligent. The truck driver followed up by filing a renewed motion for JMOL under Rule 50(b). Assume all the motions are timely. Under what circumstances, if any, should the court grant the truck driver's Rule 50(b) motion?

(A)

The judge disagrees with the verdict's outcome.

(B)

The judge believes sufficient evidence supported the verdict but believes the verdict to be a serious miscarriage of justice.

(C)

The judge believes that no reasonable juror could have found for the car driver on the evidence presented.

(D)

The judge should not grant the 50(b) motion under any circumstances, because it would contradict the judge's denial of the truck driver's Rule 50(a) motion.