Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 22STCV14367, Date: 2024-01-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV14367    Hearing Date: March 18, 2024    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

           Defendant’s motion for new trial is DENIED.

On 2/2/2024, the Court entered its Statement of Decision in this case.

On 2/22/2024, Defendant filed a Notice of Intent to Move for New Trial.

Now, on 3/8/2024, Defendant moves for new trial.

Discussion

           CRC rule 3.1600 provides:

                    (a) Time for service of memorandum

Within 10 days after filing notice of intention to move for a new trial in a civil case, the moving party must serve and file a memorandum in support of the motion, and within 10 days thereafter any adverse party may serve and file a memorandum in reply.

(b) Effect of failure to serve memorandum

If the moving party fails to serve and file a memorandum within the time prescribed in (a), the court may deny the motion for a new trial without a hearing on the merits

           Here, Defendant file a Notice of Intent to Move for New Trial on 2/22/2024. CRC Rule 3.1600 requires the motion for new trial to be filed within 10 days. As such, Defendant’s motion for new trial was due on 3/4/2024. While Defendant may contend she was confused and believed Rule 1.600 referred to 10 Court days, even assuming this were the case (despite the Rule’s clear reference to days, not Court days), allowing for 10 Court days, Defendant’s motion would have been due 3/7/2024. Defendant’s motion was not filed until 3/8/2024.

           As such, Defendant’s motion is denied as untimely, and the Court does not have to reach the merits of the motion.

           However, the Court wishes to note that the motion also fails on the merits. In her motion, Defendant argues that there were irregularity in the proceedings, excessive damages, insufficient evidence to support the findings, and errors of law excepted to at trial. However, as noted by Plaintiff, “Defendant’s memorandum does not clearly identify any specific irregularity in the proceedings. The papers primarily complain about alleged errors and defects in the Statement of Decision. These complaints concern the content of the Statement of Decision and do not identify any procedural irregularity or improper conduct in connection with the Statement of Decision.” (Opp., 2: 23-26.)

           Moreover, an irregularity in the proceedings must be established from the minutes of the court or upon affidavits, or both. (CCP § 659(a).) Defendant’s moving papers do not cite to any record in the case and do not present any affidavits or declarations. Defendant’s memorandum simply states that “... the Court erroneously entered the Final Statement of Decision ... despite Defendants timely objections thereto.” (Defendant’s memorandum, 2:6-8.)

           As for excessive damages, Defendant’s motion argues that the damages awarded are excessive but does not set forth persuasive argument to show that the damages are contrary to law, and the evidence supporting the Court’s damages award are thoroughly set forth on page 14 of the Statement of Decision.

           As for insufficient evidence, Plaintiff presented substantial evidence in support of her case and all of the Court’s rulings in this case rest on substantial evidence. Defendant did not set forth any evidence or argument that establishes otherwise.

           As for errors of law, Defendant never identifies any clear instance of an alleged error or law for which she presents a substantial argument in support. While Defendant contends “As argued below, these were all errors of law and misapplication of the facts and evidence and as such the Court should grant a new trial,” Defendant does then specifically address each contended error in law nor does she set any forth legal authority which could show these were errors in law.

           Finally, Defendant contends that the Statement of Decision “fails to capture Defendant’s evidence regarding their position on the accounting and the fact that Plaintiff owned the house since 1985 and had been owned since 1971 with no repairs. Here, the Court did consider the $95,554.25 that Defendant put into the improvement of the property. The FSOD does not state whether Plaintiff had a duty or take into account any maintenance costs from that period until Defendant became owner.” (Motion, 7: 4-9.) However, as noted by Plaintiff, “the evidence at trial supported a finding that the property had been maintained in a reasonable condition prior to the time defendant went on title, and that it was only after 2003, when defendant and her husband took a dominating control over the property, that the property fell into the extreme disrepair that now exists.” (Opp., 4: 12-15.)

           Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion for new trial is denied.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  March    , 2024

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.