its oto case. At the close of proof, Defendant made a general motion for a judgment as a matter of law. Although Defendant concedes it could have been more specific, the court concludes that Defendant’s motion for a judgment as a matter of law at the end of proof is sufficient to constitute a motion for a directed verdict on all issues. Plaintiff was aware of Defendant’s allegation that there was a failure by Plaintiff to mitigate his damages by virtue of pretrial discussions between counsel and the court, as well as Defendant’s questioning of witnesses at trial, including Defendant’s cross-examination of Plaintiff which pointedly referred to Defendant’s position that Plaintiff failed to seek comparable employment. See Acosta v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., 717 F.2d 828, 831-32 (3d Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>); Thezan v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 708 F.2d
holding that the trial court erred in granting the school boards posttrial motion for directed verdict because although the school board timely moved for a directed verdict during trial it did not serve its motion for directed verdict until the eleventh day after the verdict holding under former circuit court rule 76 the denial of the defendants directed verdict motion was not preserved for appeal where he failed to renew the motion after presenting evidence holding that despite defense counsels lack of specificity in its motion for a directed verdict other colloquies and discussions between the parties and the court cured any deficiencies in defendants rule 50 motion holding defendants failure to file motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict did not prevent district court from granting motion for directed verdict for which court reserved decision holding a directed verdict motion stating specific grounds is a prerequisite for a subsequent motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict