Judge: Eddie C. Sturgeon, Case: 37-2017-00020661-CU-CO-CTL, Date: 2024-01-26 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 25, 2024

01/26/2024  01:30:00 PM  C-67 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Eddie C Sturgeon

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Contract - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2017-00020661-CU-CO-CTL SAN DIEGO PATIENTS COOPERATIVE CORPORATION INC VS RAZUKI INVESTMENTS LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for New Trial, 12/29/2023

Defendants' Motions for New Trial and Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict are DENIED. While the motions were untimely based on the court's order requiring them to be filed by December 21 (ROA 761), the court has considered all the papers submitted.

With respect to the new trial motion, the court must evaluate whether any of the identified statutory grounds for new trial is established, and if so, whether that ground 'materially affect[s] the substantial rights of [the moving] party.' (Code Civ. Proc. § 657.) ''A new trial shall not be granted upon the ground of insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict . . . , nor upon the ground of excessive . . . damages, unless after weighing the evidence the court is convinced from the entire record, including reasonable inferences therefrom, that the court or jury clearly should have reached a different verdict or decision.' (Ibid.) A judge who presided over the trial is presumed to have considered the entire record before ruling on the motion. (See Maher v. Saad (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1317, 1324.) In considering the entire record, the court finds no reason to grant a new trial.

As for the JNOV motion, a court 'shall render judgment in favor of the aggrieved party notwithstanding the verdict whenever a motion for a directed verdict ... should have been granted had a previous motion been made.' (Code Civ. Proc. § 629(a).) A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict thus serves the same function as a motion for nonsuit. (See Beavers v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 310, 327.) A JNOV motion 'may be granted only if it appears from the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the party securing the verdict, that there is no substantial evidence in support.' (Sweatman v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs (2001) 25 Cal.4th 62, 68.) Even evidence improperly admitted during trial constitutes 'substantial evidence' for purposes of ruling on a JNOV motion. (See Donahue v. Ziv Television Programs, Inc. (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 593, 609-610.) Here, the court already previously rejected a nonsuit motion brought on similar grounds and, in any case, finds that substantial evidence supports the verdict.

The motions are denied.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3065901  23