Judge: Mark C. Kim, Case: 22LBCV00120, Date: 2023-02-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22LBCV00120    Hearing Date: February 23, 2023    Dept: S27

1.     Background Facts

On March 22, 2022, Plaintiff Ziming He (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Shawn Khan (“Defendant”).  The operative pleading was the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), which asserted causes of action for (1) breach of contract and (2) foreclosure of mechanics lien.  The crux of the FAC is that Defendant failed to pay for work completed on his property.

Defendant filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff asserting causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) negligent construction defects with resulting damages, (3) money had and received, (4) unjust enrichment, and (6) strict liability.  The Cross-Complaint alleges in relevant part that Plaintiff, who was doing business as Tiger Construction, failed to complete work done at Defendant’s property, and that Defendant overpaid for the work Plaintiff did complete.  Defendant also asserted the fifth cause of action for claim on contractor’s license bond against Hudson Insurance Company (“Hudson”).

Hudson filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff and Defendant.  Hudson’s cross-complaint contains a sole cause of action for declaratory relief, and seeks a declaration concerning its rights and duties under Plaintiff’s contractor’s bond.  Specifically, Hudson alleges Defendant has made a claim on the bond, Plaintiff opposes payment on the claim, and Hudson has been unable to determine whether it should pay on the claim.

On December 7, 2022, after a bench trial, the Court found in favor of Defendant as to the Complaint.  Specifically, the Court found that Plaintiff breached the subject contract and that Plaintiff’s mechanic lien was invalid.  In addition, the Court found in favor of Defendant as to his Cross-Complaint and awarded Defendant $108,000.

On December 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for a new trial.

2.     Motion for New Trial

a.     Legal Standard

Under CCP section 657, the grounds for new trial are the following: 

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) Jury misconduct 

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. 

A motion for new trial is a creature of statute and the Court may grant a new trial only by conforming to the statutory procedures.  (Sanchez-Corea v. Bank of America (1985) 38 Cal.3d 892, 899-900.)  Further, under Article VI, section 13, of the California Constitution, no judgment shall be set aside or new trial granted unless, after an examination of the entire cause, including the evidence, the Court shall be of the opinion that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.  (In re Marriage of Steiner & Hosseini (2004) 117 Cal. App. 4th 519, 526.) 

b.     Analysis

Plaintiff moves for a new trial on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to justify the verdict, and that there was an error in law at trial.

“A new trial shall not be granted upon the ground of insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict or other decision, nor upon the ground of excessive or inadequate damages, unless after weighing the evidence the court is convinced from the entire record, including reasonable inferences therefrom, that the court or jury clearly should have reached a different verdict or decision.”  (CCP § 657.) 

Plaintiff takes issue with the “Judgement After Court Trial” (the “Judgment”) prepared by Defendant.  Specifically, Plaintiffs disputes Defendant’s recitation and interpretation of the evidence and facts presented, and the findings made, at trial, which were included in the Judgment.  (See Mot. p. 2.) 

Plaintiff failed to meet his burden and show that the Court should have reached a different verdict.  Plaintiff disputes the interpretation of the evidence, and disputes the events that took place, but Plaintiff had the opportunity to present his case at trial, and advocate as to how the evidence should be received by the Court.  Plaintiff does not contend that the evidence was insufficient, but instead contends that the Court’s interpretation of the facts and evidence was incorrect.  Here, after hearing the parties present their case, the Court found in favor of Defendant.  In addition, the Court reviewed Defendant’s Judgment, and determined that it was an accurate representation of the evidence presented, and the findings made, at trial, and on that basis, the Court entered the judgment.  Plaintiff also asks the Court to consider Trial Exhibit No. 15 (the Complaint), which the Court informed Plaintiff is not evidence.  Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to show that the Court should have reached a different verdict.

Furthermore, Plaintiff fails to point the Court to any error in law.

Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial is DENIED.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial is DENIED.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at gdcdepts27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  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.  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.