497 (2012) (citation omitted). 14 . Plaintiffs argue that, because Petta failed to move for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50 on the grounds that Plaintiffs did not present any evidence of causation and damages prior to the case being submitted to the juty, Petta has waived any entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on those bases. See Cnty. of La Paz v. Yakima Compost Co., 224 Ariz. 590, 607, ¶ 51, 233 P.3d 1169, 1186 (App.2010). Nevertheless, “the rule that issues not objected to at trial are waived is procedural, not jurisdictional, and we may suspend it at our discretion.” Standard Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse, 190 Ariz. 6, 39, 945 P.2d 317, 350 (App. 1996) (citations omitted); see also Stokes v. Stokes, 143 Ariz. 590, 592, 694 P.2d 1204, 1206 (App. 1984) (<HOLDING>) (citations omitted). 15 . The United States
holding that erroneous findings of fact not necessary to support the judgment of the court are not grounds for reversal holding that erroneous findings of fact not necessary to support the judgment are not grounds for reversal recognizing that the rule an appealing party may not urge as grounds for reversal a theory which he failed to present below  is procedural and not jurisdictional holding that to establish grounds for reversal an appellant must challenge all grounds on which the trial court ruled against it recognizing that the waiver rule is procedural not jurisdictional and we may suspend it in our discretion citations omitted