Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22AHCV00130, Date: 2023-10-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00130    Hearing Date: March 14, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      March 14, 2024                                   TRIAL DATE: December 5, 2023

CASE:                         GUSTAVO V. GARCIA, v. GUSTAVO GARCIA, JR. and DOES 1-20, inclusive. 

CASE NO.:                 22AHCV00130

MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Gustavo V. Garcia

RESPONDING PARTY:      Defendant Gustavo Garcia Jr.

SERVICE:                              Filed February 23, 2024

OPPOSITION:                       Filed March 1, 2024

RELIEF REQUESTED

             Plaintiff moves for a new trial.

BACKGROUND

            This case arises out of Plaintiff Gustavo V. Garcia’s (“Plaintiff”) claim that he is the sole owner of property located at 8239 Bleeker Ave., Rosemead, California (“Subject Property”). Plaintiff alleges his son, Defendant Gustavo Garcia Jr. (“Defendant”), is incorrectly claiming an interest in the Subject Property. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (“SAC”) on April 7, 2023, alleging four causes of action for (1) fraud, (2) quiet title, and (3) accounting.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial is DENIED.

DISCUSSION

            On December 5, 2023, a court trial was held for this case. The court granted Defendant’s motion for nonsuit. On January 29, 2024, judgment was entered in Defendant’s favor. Plaintiff now moves for a new trial.

            “A new trial is a re-examination of an issue of fact in the same court after a trial and decision by a jury, court, or referee.” (Code Civ. Proc. section 656.)

            “The verdict may be vacated and any other decision may be modified or vacated, in whole or in part, and a new or further trial granted on all or part of the issues, on the application of the party aggrieved, for any of the following causes, materially affecting the substantial rights of such party: [¶] 1. Irregularity in the proceedings of the court, jury or adverse party, or any order of the court or abuse of discretion by which either party was prevented from having a fair trial. [¶] 2. Misconduct of the jury; and whenever any one or more of the jurors have been induced to assent to any general or special verdict, or to a finding on any question submitted to them by the court, by a resort to the determination of chance, such misconduct may be proved by the affidavit of any one of the jurors. [¶] 3. Accident or surprise, which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against. [¶] 4. Newly discovered evidence, material for the party making the application, which he could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at the trial. [¶] 5. Excessive or inadequate damages. [¶] 6. Insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict or other decision, or the verdict or other decision is against law. [¶] 7. Error in law, occurring at the trial and excepted to by the party making the application.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 657.)

            In his motion, Plaintiff fails to clearly identify sufficient grounds to grant a new trial or establish that a new trial is warranted. Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial is denied.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial is DENIED.

Dated:   March 14, 2024                                             ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court