A group of consumers sues a company in federal court for violating federal antitrust laws. What is the likely outcome if the company timely renewed its motion for judgment as a matter of law?

In the context of civil procedure, a motion for judgment as a matter of law allows a party to seek a judgment in their favor during a trial, asserting that there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to reach a contrary conclusion. This motion typically arises after the opposing party has completed its presentation of evidence.

In this scenario, if the company timely renewed its motion for judgment as a matter of law, it implies that the court has already considered this motion, likely after one party's case-in-chief during the trial. Should the court find that, based on the evidence presented, there is not enough support for the plaintiffs’ claims to warrant sending the case to jury deliberation, it may grant the motion. Thus, under these circumstances, the correct outcome would be that the motion for judgment will be granted, resulting in a judgment in favor of the company.

This means the company would effectively win the case before it reaches the jury, highlighting the importance of the motion as a tool for parties to seek resolution when they believe the evidence does not substantiate the opposing party's claims.