It appears that this is a civil action, and the court can direct a verdict based on his/her assessment of the sufficiency of evidence. As others in this thread have pointed out, he could not direct a verdict of guilty in a criminal case.
Every source I've found said that a judge cannot direct a guilty verdict in either civil or criminal trials. The judge can only order a directed verdict for not-guilty.
From: Directed Verdict:
Historically, when a judge issued a directed verdict, he would instruct the jury to return the exact verdict. In modern times, however, a judge often returns the verdict without consulting the jury beforehand. A directed verdict can only be one of innocence to prevent a defendant from receiving an unfair trial. A directed verdict cannot find a defendant guilty of civil or criminal charges.
From: What is a Directed Verdict?:
Can a Judge Find a Defendant Guilty?
Though this type of verdict may find a suspected criminal not guilty, it cannot find a defendant guilty. Federal law in the United States gives suspected criminals the right to face a jury of their peers. If the judge allows the jury to find an individual guilty without listening to all witnesses and looking at all evidence, it is a violation of that law. Even if the judge believes that the person is guilty, that suspected criminal must have access to a trial in front of a jury.
The American legal system protects the rights of both victims and suspected criminals. It allows all criminals the right to a jury trial and allows that jury to make a final determination regarding an individual’s guilt or innocence. If the judge believes that the prosecution failed to make its case in civil or criminal proceedings, he or she may order a directed verdict.