Judge: Helen Zukin, Case: 19SMCV01612, Date: 2022-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19SMCV01612    Hearing Date: September 13, 2022    Dept: 207

Background

This is an insurance bad faith action brought by Plaintiff Mingsong Yao (“Plaintiff”) against Defendant State Farm General Insurance Company (“Defendant”) arising from damage to Plaintiff’s Malibu home caused by the Woolsey Fire. The matter came on regularly for trial beginning on June 29, 2022, in Department 207 of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, the Honorable Helen Zukin presiding. A jury of twelve persons and alternates was regularly impaneled and sworn. Between July 1 and July 8, 2022, witnesses were sworn and testified, and exhibits were identified and received into evidence.

After hearing the evidence and arguments of counsel, the jury was duly instructed by the court and the case was submitted to the jury with directions to return a verdict. The jury deliberated and thereafter returned into court on July 8, 2022. The jury found, in relevant part, Plaintiff did not suffer a covered loss under his insurance policy with Defendant which Defendant had failed to pay or had delayed in paying. Plaintiff now moves for judgment notwithstanding the verdict as to the judgment entered against him. Defendant opposes the motion.

The Court notes on September 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Declaration of Mingsong Yao Regarding Plaintiff Mingsong Yao’s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict.” This document appears to be a reply in support of Plaintiff’s motion and the Court will construe it as such in ruling on Plaintiff’s motion.

Legal Standard

The party against whom a verdict has been rendered may move the court for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and the court shall grant the motion “whenever a motion for directed verdict for the aggrieved party should have been granted had a previous motion been made.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 629, subd. (a).) The purpose of such a motion is to challenge whether the opposing party’s evidence was sufficient to prove the claims or defenses asserted and now embodied by the jury’s verdict. (Hauter v. Zogarts (1975) 14 Cal.3d 104, 110.)

In ruling on a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the court does not weigh the evidence or determine the credibility of witnesses. (Id.) The party in whose favor the verdict was rendered is “entitled to the benefit of every favorable inference which may reasonably be drawn from the evidence and to have all conflicts in the evidence resolved in his favor.” (Castro v. State of California (1981) 114 Cal.App.3d 503, 507 (Castro).) “A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict 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.) The focus in determining whether substantial evidence supports the verdict “is on the quality, rather than the quantity, of the evidence. ‘Very little solid evidence may be “substantial,” while a lot of extremely weak evidence might be “insubstantial.”’ [Citation.] Inferences may constitute substantial evidence, but they must be the product of logic and reason. Speculation or conjecture alone is not substantial evidence.” (Roddenberry v. Roddenberry (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 634, 651.)

Analysis

As the moving party, Plaintiff bears the burden of showing there was no substantial evidence introduced at trial which would support the jury’s verdict. Plaintiff has made no such showing. Plaintiff’s moving papers simply recite the allegations of his Complaint without reference or mention to the evidence which was put before the jury during the trial by either side. At most, Plaintiff argues there is evidence which would support a verdict in his favor. However, this issue is not before the Court. As set forth above, the inquiry on a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is whether substantial evidence was presented at trial which supports the verdict. Plaintiff has not addressed this issue and offers no discussion or argument regarding the evidence submitted by Defendant at trial and whether such evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict.

The Court finds the jury’s verdict is supported by substantial evidence. As set forth in Defendant’s opposition, Defendant introduced witness testimony and documentary evidence regarding its response to Plaintiff’s insurance claim and the reasonableness of Defendant’s reimbursement and accommodations provided under Plaintiff’s policy. This included testimony from Chad Hammond, Katy Driscoll, Steve Moore, and Laura Salgues, Defendant presented evidence showing what reimbursements, repairs, and accommodations were provided to Plaintiff under the policy, and explaining why no such reimbursements or repairs sought by Plaintiff were provided. Taken together, the Court finds the jury’s verdict is supported by substantial evidence introduced by Defendant showing Defendant had not failed to pay or delayed in paying Plaintiff for any covered loss he suffered.

In his reply, Plaintiff alleges he was prevented from producing evidence at trial because no interpreter was provided to him: “During trial, without an interpreter, I don’t understand the instructions of the court and could not submit all the evidence that I prepared for the trial. I prepared 200 exhibits but I was able to submit less than 20 of them.” (Reply at ¶ 15.) Pursuant to Evidence Code § 752, the Court must appoint an interpreter where a witness “is incapable of understanding the English language or is incapable of expressing himself or herself in the English language so as to be understood directly by counsel, court, and jury.” The Court initially appointed an interpreter for Plaintiff. On July 1, 2022, the Court conducted an examination of Plaintiff outside the presence of the jurors and denied his request for an interpreter, finding “Plaintiff understands English, communicates well and can be understood.” (July 1, 2022, Order at 1.) The Court also noted “Defendant stipulates to Plaintiff providing an interpreter if Plaintiff feels an interpreter is necessary.” (Id.) Plaintiff made no accommodations to have an interpreter present for trial. His decision to proceed without an interpreter cannot now justify an overturning of the jury’s verdict based on the substantial evidence introduced by Defendant.

Plaintiff also appears to allege juror misconduct. There was no evidence presented to substantiate the claim and the Court finds there was no juror misconduct.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is DENIED.