Judge: Kimberly Knill, Case: 30-2013-00659259-CU-WT-CXC, Date: 2023-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial or in the Alternative, Remittitur

Plaintiff, Carl Taswell’s motion for new trial is DENIED.

There was no prejudicial error in law.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 657(7).)  The court’s rulings on the motions in limine and evidentiary matters during trial, even if erroneous, were not prejudicial.

There was no attorney misconduct.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 657(1).)  Attorney misconduct is an irregularity in the proceedings and a ground for a new trial. (City of Los Angeles v. Decker (1977) 18 Cal.3d 860, 870.)  To preserve the issue, an objection must have been lodged at trial and the party must also have moved for a mistrial or sought a curative admonition.  (Cassim v. Allstate Insurance Company (2004) 33 Cal.4th 780, 794.)  Here, plaintiffs objected but never moved for mistrial and never sought a curative admonition on the grounds now being raised.

The evidence to justify the verdict was sufficient.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 657(6).)  There was sufficient credible evidence to support the verdict, including defendant’s theory of the case that plaintiff was placed on administrative leave, and plaintiff’s employment was not renewed, due to his inability or unwillingness to perform, or malfeasance concerning, necessary job duties, and not due to retaliation for whistleblower activity. The court finds plaintiff was not credible in much of his testimony.  At times plaintiff presented as argumentative, unresponsive, volatile, rude, and/or impatient. He often shouted into the microphone.  At one point the court had to recess for plaintiff to regain his composure before continuing his testimony. The court finds the testimony of defendant’s witnesses Barbara Hamrick, Scott Goodwin, James Hicks, Rebecca Brusuelas-James, Michael Arias, and James High, more credible.

Defendant to give notice.