Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: BC654909, Date: 2023-01-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC654909    Hearing Date: January 19, 2023    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate is DENIED.

On March 21, 2017, Plaintiffs Kreitzman and Brian Senit (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed the instant action. On May 23, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint (SAC) against Mercury Casualty Company (Mercury), Sunny Hills Associates, Inc., Alliance Environmental Group, Patriot Environmental Services, and Delta Commerce Corporation, alleging: (1) breach of contract; and (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (3) negligent misrepresentation.

Now, Plaintiffs move to vacate the judgment.

Discussion

            Plaintiff argues that the jury’s verdict contradicts the undisputed evidence in this case, and thus must be set aside.

            The jury submitted the following answer to Special Verdict Form Question No.1:

Question No. 1: Did Jackie Kreitzman and Brian Senit suffer a loss, all or part of which was covered under the insurance policy?

Answer:   ____    __X__

                              Yes    No

(Kim Decl., Judgment, Ex. I.)

Plaintiff argues that this conclusion cannot be supported by the evidence because Mercury’s own insurance adjuster and expert admitted that there was some amount of damage that was covered under the homeowner’s insurance policy issued the Plaintiffs.

However, as noted by Defendant, one of Defendant’s arguments at trial was “while they gave the benefit of the doubt and extended coverage, they should have rekeyed the loss date to November 2014…which would have barred Plaintiffs' claim entirely as they would have failed to timely bring their suit.” (Opp., 14: 8-11.) Moreover, testimony was given with supporting trial exhibits presented to the jury that Plaintiffs may have submitted a false claim. (See Opp., 14: 24-15: 8.)

As such, evidence was presented that the jury could have believed showed that Plaintiffs never had a covered claim in the first place or had a time-barred claim. As such, the jury’s conclusion is not inconsistent with the evidence presented at the time of trial.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate is denied.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  January    , 2023

   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. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.