In Vanguard Pai Lung, LLC v. Moody, No. 15A24 (N.C. Mar. 21, 2025), the Supreme Court of North Carolina delivered a cautionary message for every trial lawyer: to preserve an issue for a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), counsel must first raise that precise issue—specifically—in a motion for directed verdict.
While this requirement is not new, the Court’s decision formally adopts a line of Court of Appeals precedent that enforces this rule with precision, particularly in complex cases involving multiple claims or defenses. The opinion not only raises the stakes for trial counsel at the directed verdict stage, but also underscores the value of involving appellate counsel early to ensure preservation is properly executed.
This article summarizes the decision and offers practical guidance for lawyers who want to protect their clients’ positions in post-trial motions and on appeal.
Background of the Case
The dispute in Vanguard stemmed from a failed business relationship within a textile machinery company. Vanguard Pai Lung, LLC—a North Carolina manufacturer and distributor of circular knitting machines—filed claims against its former CEO, William Moody, and related business entities under his control. The plaintiffs alleged fraudulent misrepresentation, embezzlement, conversion, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and unjust enrichment.
The case proceeded to a jury trial before the North Carolina Business Court. At the close of the evidence, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs on nearly every claim. The defendants moved for JNOV under Rule 50(b), but the trial court denied most of the motion. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, focusing in particular on the defendants’ failure to preserve key arguments at trial.
The Court’s Holding on Preservation
The central issue was whether the defendants had properly preserved the arguments raised in their JNOV motion by articulating those same grounds in their earlier directed verdict motion under Rule 50(a).
The Court held that a Rule 50(b) motion must be made “in accordance with” the earlier Rule 50(a) motion. That means a party may only renew issues it raised with specificity during trial. Citing and formally endorsing Plasma Centers of America, LLC v. Talecris Plasma Resources, Inc., 222 N.C. App. 83 (2012), the Court stated:
“To preserve an issue for use in a motion for JNOV under Rule 50(b), the movant first must have timely moved for a directed verdict based on that same issue.”
The Court emphasized that in cases involving multiple claims, theories of liability, or defenses, general or vague Rule 50 motions fall short. Trial courts and opposing counsel must receive adequate notice of the legal or evidentiary deficiency being asserted—otherwise, the argument is waived.
Application to the Case
In Vanguard, the defendants challenged various elements of the jury’s verdict in their JNOV motion, including whether there was sufficient evidence to support the claims for fraud and conversion. But the Supreme Court concluded that many of these arguments had not been preserved at trial.
For example, in their JNOV motion, the defendants asserted that there was insufficient evidence that Moody personally converted company funds, vehicles, or other assets. But at trial, their directed verdict motion addressed only one narrow point: that Moody had not converted laptops used by his children. As the Court observed, the motion “did not refer to the disputed money, cars, cell phones, and football tickets,” and therefore failed to preserve broader conversion arguments.
Similarly, the defendants challenged the fraud verdict post-trial asserting that plaintiffs had not shown intent to deceive. Yet at the directed verdict stage, they had only contested whether any misrepresentation occurred—ignoring the element of intent. The Court found the distinction dispositive:
“To preserve the argument raised in the JNOV motion, Moody and Nova Trading needed to specifically assert to the business court that they were challenging the sufficiency of the evidence that the alleged misrepresentations were made with an intent to deceive… They did not do so.”
In both instances, the Court reaffirmed that in complex, multi-issue trials, it is not enough to hint at a general deficiency. Counsel must identify each specific ground for relief on the record.
Practical Guidance for Trial Counsel
Vanguard reinforces the critical role of detailed, strategic motion practice at trial. The Court’s holding clarifies that preservation is not a technicality—it is a foundational requirement for post-trial motions and appellate review. These practices can help counsel protect their record:
- Be Specific—Even If It Feels Redundant
Direct your motion to the specific claim, the precise element at issue, and the evidentiary deficiency. In lengthy trials, it can be tempting to generalize. Resist that urge. Specificity protects your ability to seek post-verdict relief.
- File Written Motions When Possible
Although oral Rule 50(a) motions are permitted, a written motion provides a clear and reliable record. In complex or high-value cases, a written submission ensures no ground is missed or misunderstood.
- Renew at the Close of All Evidence
A Rule 50(a) motion must be renewed after all evidence is presented. Failing to do so forfeits even properly articulated grounds. Preservation requires diligence throughout the trial.
- Engage Appellate Counsel Early
Appellate counsel can help trial teams craft targeted Rule 50 motions, identifying preservation risks, and protecting key legal theories. In high-stakes litigation, that support can prove decisive.
Avoiding Waiver in Multi-Theory Cases
The Vanguard opinion also clarifies that directed verdict motions must address each theory presented to the jury. For example, if a fraud claim proceeds under two distinct theories and counsel challenges only one, the other remains unchallenged and therefore preserved in the verdict.
The Court summarized this principle clearly:
“In cases involving multiple defenses and theories of liability, it is critical that the movant direct the trial court with specificity to the grounds for its motion for a directed verdict.”
When the plaintiff pleads multiple theories and presents them to the jury, the Rule 50(a) motion must match that complexity. Anything less risks partial preservation—or total waiver.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Vanguard Pai Lung, LLC v. Moody offers both clarification and caution. Preservation under Rule 50 requires more than good intentions or general objections—it demands precision. Trial counsel must identify the exact ground for relief with clarity, or the issue is lost.
This decision is an opportunity for trial lawyers to reassess their Rule 50 practices and consider integrating preservation protocols into trial planning—especially in business and commercial disputes where the stakes are high.
Early coordination with appellate counsel can help safeguard the record, refine trial strategy, and ensure that no argument is left behind.
