Question: A patient from State A filed a diversity action against a doctor from State B in federal court in State A. The patient sought $175,000 pursuant to a contract dispute. After the patient's lawyer completed presenting evidence to the jury, but before the doctor's lawyer had presented evidence, the doctor's lawyer submitted a motion for judgment as a matter of law, which the court denied. The jury returned a verdict for the patient. The doctor's lawyer submitted a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and an alternative motion for a new trial.

Which is the court's most likely response to the doctor's motions?

A. Consider the renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law first and, if denied, then consider the motion for a new trial.

B. Consider the renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law first and, if granted, conditionally rule on the motion for a new trial.

Explain why B is the correct answer. I don't understand why if the renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law was granted, you'd still need to conditionally rule on the motion for a new trial - because wouldn't the renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law solve everything? Also, why is it a better answer than A? Please explain.