Judge: James A. Mangione, Case: 37-2018-00063539-CU-CO-CTL, Date: 2023-08-25 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 24, 2023

08/25/2023  09:00:00 AM  C-75 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:James A Mangione

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Contract - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2018-00063539-CU-CO-CTL BROUARD VS HYANDAI MOTOR AMERICA [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Plaintiffs Barbara Brouard and Max Brouard's Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict is denied.

'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. Department of Veterans Affairs (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 62, 68.) Trial courts 'may not weigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses,' must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the prevailing party and must disregard conflicting evidence. (McCoy v. Pacific Maritime Assn. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 283, 299.) Here, the jury concluded that the Subject Vehicle had a warranty-covered defect and that Defendant failed to repair the vehicle after a reasonable number of attempts. However, the jury ultimately concluded that Defendant did not fail to promptly repurchase or replace the vehicle. The Court finds there is substantial evidence to support this finding, including the Plaintiffs' initial requests for repairs, Defendant's voicemail offer to repurchase the Subject Vehicle prior to the BBB arbitration hearing and the ultimately repurchase in January 2019. Furthermore, the BBB arbitrator's decision was admitted in evidence for the jury to consider but was not determinative of the ultimate factual determinations in this case.

-- Plaintiffs Barbara Brouard and Max Brouard's Motion for New Trial is denied.

'A new trial shall not be granted upon the ground of insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict or other decision, . . . 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.' (CCP §657.) New trials shall not be granted unless moving parties show a reasonable probability that a more favorable result could have been obtained, were it not for an error.

(Winfred D. v. Michelin No. Amer., Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1011, 1038.) In ruling on a new trial, a trial court sits as an independent trier of fact. (Lane v. Hughes Aircraft Co. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 405, 412.) For the reasons identified in the Court's concurrent ruling on Plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, the Court finds that the jury's verdict is supported by the evidence.

Furthermore, even if the jury had concluded that Defendant failed to promptly repurchase or replace the Subject Vehicle before the BBB arbitration hearing, Defendant is protected from civil liabilities based on Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2993425  16 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  BROUARD VS HYANDAI MOTOR AMERICA [IMAGED]  37-2018-00063539-CU-CO-CTL its maintenance of a qualified third-party dispute resolution process. (See Civil Code § 1794(d).) Finally, the jury concluded that the 30-day delay in repurchasing the Subject Vehicle following the BBB arbitration ruling was due to circumstances outside its control, necessarily implying that the jury did not find Defendant's failure to act was willful.

The minute order is the order of the Court.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2993425  16