Plaintiff brought a civil rights claim in federal court against City in State A, alleging that City police falsely arrested him when it mistook him for the wanted perpetrator similarly named. The City raised the affirmative defense of probable cause to arrest Plaintiff. At the close of the evidence, Plaintiff moved for Rule 50(a) judgment as a matter of law on his claim and on the City's affirmative defense. In support of the motion, he argued that no reasonable juror could find against him on his claim and that the City had insufficient evidence of probable cause. The court denied the motion, and the jury returned a verdict for the City. Plaintiff brought a timely renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b). The City did not challenge Plaintiff's argument that the evidence supported his claim as a matter of law. Instead, it responded to Plaintiff's motion by arguing that granting the motion would impermissibly violate the Seventh Amendment's Reexamination Clause, under which "no fact tried by a jury shall otherwise be reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

Has the City raised a valid argument in response to Plaintiff's Rule 50(b) motion?

(A)

No, because the court is entitled to overturn a jury's verdict if the court disagrees with it.

(B)

No, because the Reexamination Clause does not prohibit a Rule 50(b) motion.

(C)

Yes, because granting Plaintiff's Rule 50(b) motion would invade the jury's province to decide the facts of a case.

(D)

Yes, because Plaintiff's Rule 50(b) motion poses too great a risk of the court substituting its own judgment for the jury's.