TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Estate of Victor Betancourt, Jr.’s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict as to Survival Damages for Pain and Suffering is DENIED.

Plaintiff Estate of Victor Betancourt, Jr. to give notice.

REASONING

This matter went to trial in August 2024. On August 13, 2024, the jury returned a verdict stating that Plaintiffs Estate of Victor Betancourt, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), Veronica Gamez, and Victor Betancourt, Sr. should be awarded economic and noneconomic damages. The jury further found that Victor Betancourt, Jr. (“Decedent”) did not experience pain and suffering before dying as a result of the subject incident, such that Plaintiff was awarded no damages in this regard. On October 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the ground the evidence did not support the verdict; specifically, the evidence showed that Decedent experienced conscious pain and suffering prior to his death, so damages should have been awarded for pain and suffering.

As a procedural matter, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s failure to file and serve a notice of intention to move for new trial defeats its motion as a procedural matter. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 659, subd. (a).) Case law provides that “where there is no new trial motion filed,” as is the case here, “the latest date for ruling on a motion for [judgment notwithstanding the verdict] is: (1) 60 days from and after the mailing of notice of entry of judgment by the clerk of the court pursuant to section 664.5, or (2) 60 days from and after service on the moving party by any party of written notice of the entry of the judgment, whichever is earlier.” (Pratt v. Vencor, Inc. (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 905, 907.) The Court has not yet entered judgment in this action; thus, the time to move for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and to rule on the same have not expired.

“A judgment notwithstanding the verdict can be sustained only when it can be said as a matter of law that no other reasonable conclusion is legally deducible from the evidence, and that any other holding would be so lacking in evidentiary support that the reviewing court would be compelled to reverse it, or the trial court would be compelled to set it aside as a matter of law . . . .” (Moore v. City & County of San Francisco (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 728, 733.) “Conflicts in the evidence are resolved against the moving defendant and in favor of the plaintiff; all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence are drawn against the moving defendant and in favor of the plaintiff.” (Fountain Valley Chateau Blanc Homeowner’s Association v. Department of Veterans Affairs (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 743, 750, italics omitted.)

Plaintiff argues that Los Angeles County Sheriff Deputies Carlos Vindell and Zachary Little testified in their depositions that Decedent was in and out of consciousness and succumbed while at the hospital. (Mot., Exs. A, B.) However, the deputies failed to appear at trial despite receiving subpoenas, which deprived the jury of crucial firsthand testimony about Decedent’s condition immediately after the crash. (Mot., Ex. C.) Live testimony would have provided the jury with an immediate and impactful account of Decedent’s condition.  

Insofar as Plaintiff contends this missing testimony resulted in a prejudicial outcome for Plaintiff, the Court is not so convinced. Merely stating that Decedent was in and out of consciousness would not have definitively resulted in a finding that Decedent had experienced conscious pain and suffering prior to his death in light of the other evidence presented to the jury. Specifically, the jury heard evidence from the emergency doctor who treated Decedent, who stated that Decedent was not responding to verbal or painful stimuli when he arrived intubated and in a coma; testimony that the THC level in Decedent’s body on autopsy was 26 millionths of a gram, which indicated a recent intake; argument from Plaintiff’s counsel that a high THC level meant a person was driving while intoxicated; and argument from defense counsel that Plaintiff had not sustained its burden of proof on survival damages. While the arguments were not evidence, they helped lead the jury’s interpretation of the evidence, and the evidence supported a conclusion that Decedent did not experience pain and suffering prior to his death.

Accordingly, Plaintiff Estate of Victor Betancourt, Jr.’s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict as to Survival Damages for Pain and Suffering is DENIED.